Delhi District Court
Jhungi Nath Singh vs Dda on 30 April, 2025
-1-
IN THE COURT OF MS. DISHA SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE-02
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO.606925/2016
CNR NO. DLWT03-000006-1997
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: -
1). Sh. Jhungi Nath Singh
S/o Sh. Jaminder Singh
R/o 10, Jawahar Nagar,
New Delhi-110007.
2). Sh. Dina Nath
S/o Sh. Thakur Prasad
R/o Kh. No.619/17, Sidhora Khurd,
A-800/35, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
3). Sh. Devender Kumar (since deceased)
Through LRs:-
a). Ms. Roshini
W/o Late Sh. Devender Kumar
b). Sh. Ajay Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Devender Kumar
c). Ms. Jyoti D/o Late Sh. Devender Kumar
All R/o 619/17, Shastri Nagar,
Sidhora Khurd, Delhi.
Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-1/28
-2-
Also at:- 228, Pana Udyan, Narela,
Delhi-110040.
..........................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority
through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
.....................DEFENDANT
Suit filed on :- 04.01.1997
Judgment Reserved on :- 29.04.2025
Date of decision :- 30.04.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the suit filed by plaintiffs against the defendant seeking decree of permanent injunction. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is vital to first state the pleadings in the present suit concisely, which are as follows:
Pleadings of the Plaintiffs: -
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking decree of Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-2/28 -3- permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant, their agents, employees, officials, representatives etc. from demolishing the suit property and/or dispossessing the plaintiffs and/or interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff's property out of Khasra no.619/17, situated at Revenue Estate of Village Sidhora Khurd, known as Shastri Nagar, Delhi, as clearly show in the the site plan.
2. It has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of property measuring area 450 sq. yds. with the structure and fixtures, which is part of Khasra no.619/17, situated at Village & Revenue Estate of Sidhora Khurd, area known as Shastri Nagar, Delhi. That the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit property and have been enjoying the same since the date of its purchase by the plaintiffs from its previous owner, for a valid consideration and against a registered sale deed, duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi. That the mutation has already been effected in the name of the present plaintiffs, as per their possession on the property in question.
3. It has been further averred that the property in question is free from all sorts of acquisition. That the same has neither been ever notified for acquisition nor acquired by any department for any purpose whatsoever. That DDA has no Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-3/28 -4- concern with the property in question as the same has been a private property which has not yet been acquired or notified.
4. It has been further averred in the plaint that for the last about one month, the officials of the DDA have been visiting the suit property and harassing the plaintiffs, on one or the other pretext. That they have been extending threats of demolition of the suit property without any rhyme or reason and without having any order in writing for the said purposes. That the said officials wanted some illegal gratification from the plaintiff, which the plaintiffs are not in a position to fulfill. That the plaintiffs have not done anything illegal or in contravention of the provisions of Delhi Development Act and the rules framed thereunder.
5. It has been further averred that the officials of the defendants who visited the suit property on 03.01.1997 (ought to have been 03.01.1996) at about 11:00 AM and started demolishing a portion of the suit property. That the plaintiff resisted the acts of the defendant's officials and raised a great hue and cry, hearing which all the respectable of the area and the neighbors gathered at the sit and it was with great difficulty that the defendant could be stopped from continuing their demolition action. That the said officials were forced to leave the spot, however, they left after giving threat of visiting the suit property again in Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-4/28 -5- a day or two for dispossession and demolition with more force.
6. It has been further averred that the act of the defendant is against the provision of law, illegal, arbitrary, uncalled for and against the principles of natural justices, as no show cause notice has ever been served upon the plaintiffs nor any opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the plaintiffs. That the said action of the defendants is liable to be quashed and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence the plaintiffs, having no other efficacious remedy with them, have filed the present suit.
Pleadings of the Defendant: -
7. That, written statement was filed on behalf of defendant DDA denying the allegations as contained in the plaint wherein, inter alia, it has been submitted that the plaintiff is seeking declaration in the garb of injunction, therefore, the suit is not maintainable for want of notice U/s 53-B of Delhi Development Act, which is mandatory provisions, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. That the land in suit is acquired land by Union of India through LAC, therefore, Union of India is necessary party to the suit, hence the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party. That the suit has not been signed, filed and presented by a competent person. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the presents suit. That the plaintiff has Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-5/28 -6- not come to this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. That the plaintiff is trying to mislead the Court as the possession is already with DDA and, therefore, the suit is infructuous and liable to be dismissed.
8. It has been further submitted that the suit land falls in Khasra no.621/17 and not in Khasra no.619/17 as alleged by Revenue Estate of Sadhora Khurd, which has been acquired vide Award no.1984 possession of which has been transferred to Horticulture Department of DDA on 13.02.1968 for development as green. That the said land has been placed at the disposal of the DDA U/s 22 (1) of the DD Act vide notification no.F.8(49)63/L&H dated 03.01.1968. That the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the land in suit which is acquired land placed at the disposal of the DDA. That the claim of the plaintiff is based on some alleged sale deed, which is illegal and void ab-initio, if any, as no one is competent to sell or purchase the acquired land of government. That the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the land in suit and is merely trying to encroach upon the acquired land.
9. It has been further submitted that no threat as alleged has ever been caused or no demolition programme as alleged has ever been carried out by the defendant as the land is already in possession of the DDA and the same is an Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-6/28 -7- acquired land at the disposal of the DDA and therefore, DDA within its jurisdiction to protect the government land from encroachment.
Issues: -
10.From the pleadings of the parties, following sole issue was framed in the suit vide order dated 17.05.2000: -
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction? (OPP) (2) Relief.
Plaintiff Evidence: -
11.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got examined 7 witnesses in toto which are as under: -
a). PW-1 Sh. Ram Nath Mehto brought the jamabandi record of Khasra no.619/17, Village Sidhora Khurd. That as per original record of mutation vide its no.1947 which was effected on 13.06.1995 in the name of 3 persons in the name of Sh. Jhungi Nath S/o Sh. Zamindar Singh, Dina Nath S/o Sh. Thakur Parshad and Sh. Devender Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Singh. That property was transferred in the above said name 9/46 yrs. Out of total property 2 bighas 6 biswas. That the total property transferred is 9 biswas i.e. 450 sq. yds. That the jamabandi furd is issued by him and is as per original brought by him and the same is Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-7/28 -8- Ex.PW-1/1. It has been further deposed that as per his record, the land has not yet been acquired so far. That as per mutation affected in the name of 3 persons, they are owner of the property as per the record.
PW-1 was also cross-examined on behalf of defendant/ DDA.
b). PW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar, Patwari from Land Acquisition Branch (North), Delhi brought the original Award no.1984, Village Sidhora Khurd, Khasra no.619/17 situated at Village Sidhora Khurd is not acquired by this Award and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex.PW-2/1, which is the exact copy of Award no.1984, Village Sidhora Khurd. That Khasra no.619/17, Village Sidhora Khurd is unacquired as per their record.
PW-2 was also cross-examined on behalf of defendant/ DDA.
c). PW-3 Sh. Harinder Mohan, Patwari from Sadar Kaanongo Branch, Delhi brought the mutation record for the year 1935-36 in Jamabandi in respect of land Khasra no.17, Village Shidora Khurd. That as per Khasra no.17, repartition in several Khasra numbers, thereby carrying out Tatima i.e. shown on record and this khasra was divided into Khasra no.618/17, 619/17/2, 620/17/1, 621/17/3, 622/17/5. That these five parts are also shown in Naksha Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-8/28 -9- Tatima and its area is also mention in the mutation. Copy of Tatima is Ex.PW-3/1. That whenever a khasra is divided into more than one khasra by making Tatima (Naksha), its field book is prepared by the concerned officer and measurement of that khasra of north, south, east, west is written as per Tatima Naksha carved out of their concerned officer. That in this particular Khasra number, the Khasra is divided into five parts and its every part is clearly shown as per its measurement in the field book given in the furd. That total area of Khara no.17 of Village Sadhora Khurd is 6 bigha and 5 biswas. That it has been divided into 5 parts, which are known as 620/17/1 (1-11), 619/17/2 (2-6), 621/17/3 (0-16), 618/17/4 (0-11), 622/17/5 (1-1) (as per entries in mutation register, mutation no.688). That these numbers are mentioned in the Jamabandi record as 618/17 (0-11), 619/17 (2-6), 621-17 (0-16), 620/17 (1-11), 622/17 (1-1). It has been further deposed by PW-3 that he has never visited the disputed land. That he cannot say whether Khasra no.17 including its parts mentioned above is acquired or not. That there is no entry in this regard in the record brought by him today.
d). PW-5 Sh. Dina Nath led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-5/A. PW-5 relied upon certain documents which were already exhibited during the examination of PW-4: -
Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-9/28 -10- Identification Description Mark Ex.PW-4/1 Copy of sale deed dated 25.09.1995. Ex.PW-4/2 Copy of Jamabandi of the year 1982-83.
Ex.PW-4/3 Copy of Tatima.
Ex.PW-4/4 Copy of Sizra as per site.
Ex.PW-4/5 Site plan.
Ex.PW-4/6 Letter written to the DDA.
Ex.PW-4/7 The postal receipt.
PW-5 was also cross-examined at length on behalf of defendant/DDA.
e). PW-6 Sh. Lalit Kumar Rana, Patwari from the Office of SDM, Civil Lines the summoned record i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 of khasra no.619/17 (2-6), Village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi. Copy of the same is Ex.PW-6/1 (OSR). He also brought khatoni (2 pages) for year 1982-83 of Khasra no.620/17 min (1-4), 618/17 (0-11), 621/17 (0-
16), Village Sidhora Khurd. Copy of the same is Ex.PW-6/2 (OSR). He also brought field book of khasra no.17 (encircled at point 'A'), Village Sidhora Khurd.
Copy of the same is Ex.PW-6/3 (OSR).
PW-6 was also cross-examined on behalf of defendant/ DDA at length.
Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-10/28 -11-
f). PW-7 Sh. Dhiraj Mali, ASO from Central Record Room, Sadar Kanoongo Office, Tis Hazari, Delhi brought the original inteqal no.688 of Village Sadhora Khurd, Delhi. The certified copy of the relevant pages thereof is filed on record and is exhibited as Ex.PW-7/1 (OSR) (15 pages).
PW-7 was also cross-examined on behalf of defendant/DDA.
g). PW-8 Sh. Sanjay Arora, Planning Assistant, Town Planning Department, MCD brought the summoned record i.e. Regularization Plan of unauthorized regularized colony Shashtri Nagar. It was deposed by PW-8 that the said document is titled as 'Proposed Revised Regularization Plan of Shashtri Nagar' drawing no.TP/UC/2186. That the said document is quite big and the photocopy of entire document cannot be got done. However, same is available on website of MCD under the portal of Town Planning Department. That the Photocopy of the entire aforesaid layout plan filed by him today is Ex.PW-8/1 (OSR). That on the right side of Ex.PW-8/1 under the heading notes at serial no.8, it is written 'M', mosque, mandir and other R.B. The enlarged photocopy of the said right hand portion of the aforesaid layout plan (Ex.PW-8/1) is separately filed by him today and is exhibited as Ex.PW-8/2 (OSR). That in the aforesaid regularization plan, 'M' means/ denotes Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-11/28 -12- the religious buildings. At point 'A' encircled as red today in the Ex.PW-8/2 is the plot meant for religious building. During examination, the witness was shown the document already been exhibited as Ex.PW-4/5 and is asked to point out the area encircled as point 'A' in the Ex.PW-8/2, to which the witness replied that Ex.PW-4/5 is not an authenticated document, however, it seems that the area encircled as red by him today in Ex.PW-4/5 at point 'B' (which also includes the portion already been shown as red therein) is the plot meant for religious structure shown as point 'A' in Ex.PW-8/2. It was further deposed that the position of the area shown as green, petrol pump and of Kalidas Marg is same in the Ex.PW-8/2 and Ex.PW-4/5.
PW-8 was also cross-examined on behalf of defendant/DDA at length.
Thereafter, the plaintiff evidence was closed vide order dated 28.11.2024 and the matter was proceeded for defence evidence.
Defendant Evidence: -
12.In defence evidence, the defendant/DDA got examined two witnesses, which are as under: -
a). DW-1 Sh. Lalit Rana, Patwari from the office of LAC (Central), Daryaganj deposed that he has been summoned Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-12/28 -13- as a witness by DDA in Suit no. 6981/16 titled Partap Singh Vs. DDA to produce the record with respect to land in said suit. That he has also brought the original record pertaining to Award no.1984 dated 30.06.1967. That photocopy of the Award no.1984, prepared from the original record and filed by him today, is exhibited as Ex.
DW-1/1 (OSR) and photocopy of the document dated 26.09.1967 prepared from the original record, in Urdu language is filed by him and is exhibited as Ex. DW-1/2 (OSR). That since he cannot read and write Urdu language, therefore, cannot say whether Ex. DW-1/2 is the possession proceedings or not but the same is the photocopy of the original as available in their record. However, he can tell the khasra no.621/17, which is mentioned at point A in Ex. DW-1/2.
DW-1 was cross-examined by the counsel of plaintiff.
b). DW-2 Sh. Niraj Kumar Meena, Patwari, Land Management Department (Central Zone), DDA tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW-2/A. DW-2 also relied upon certain documents which are as under: -
Identification Mark Description
Ex. DW-2/1 Rough location plan prepared by
me.
Ex.PW-1/D1 (already Shizra (plan) of Village Sidhora
Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-13/28
-14-
exhibited) Khurd.
Ex.PW-2/1 & Ex. Award no.1984 dated 30.06.1967
DW-1/1 (already
exhibited)
Ex. DW-2/2 Possession proceedings dated
26.09.1967.
Ex. DW-2/3 Translation of possession
proceedings dated 26.09.1967.
Ex. DW-2/4 Notification dated 03.01.1968
issued U/s 22 (1) of DD Act.
DW-2 was cross-examined by the counsel of plaintiff at length.
Thereafter, DE of defendant/DDA was closed vide order dated 08.01.2025.
Decision with reasons: -
13.The final arguments have been extensively heard on behalf of both the parties at length and the entire record has been carefully perused. During the course of final arguments, the parties have placed reliance and reiterated their respective pleadings, evidence led on their behalf and cross-examination of the witness(es) of the opposite side, as discussed in detail herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
14.Now, let us deliberate upon the factual matrix and evidences in the matter at hand and issue-wise findings Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-14/28 -15- thereon.
15.Issue No. (1) -
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction? (OPP) The onus to prove this issue and the general burden of proving the case was upon.
At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking the relief of per- manent injunction against defendant/DDA thereby restrain- ing DDA, their agents, employees, officials, representa- tives etc. from demolishing the suit property and/or dispos- sessing the plaintiffs and/or interfering in the peaceful pos- session of plaintiff's property out of Khasra no.619/17, measuring 450 sq. yds. situated at Revenue Estate of Vil- lage Sidhora Khurd, known as Shastri Nagar, Delhi [here- inafter referred as "the suit land/property"], as per the site plan, annexed with the plan. Per contra, the crux of the de- fence of the DDA is that, the suit land actually forms part of Khasra no.621/17, Village Sadhora Khurd, Delhi which has duly been acquired through Award no. 1984 and the physical possession of the suit land was taken over by the Government and transferred to the DDA on 13.02.1968 and has also been placed at the disposal of the DDA vide Notification no. F-8(49)63/L&H on 03.01.1968 issued un- der Section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development Authority Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-15/28 -16- Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as "the DDA Act"]. Thus, it is further pertinent to mention that the ownership of the suit land, whether in plaintiff or DDA, is not directly and substantially in issue.
That, in order to prove its case, plaintiff got examined as many as seven witnesses as detailed hereinabove. The plaintiff has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW1-Sh. Ram Mehto, Kanungo, Teh. Civil Lines, who testified to the effect that, as per record the Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and suit property is situated in in Khasra No. 619/17. That, PW-1 tendered in evidence the Jama- bandi/ record of right of Khasra No. 619/17 and mutation pertaining to the year 1947, in favour of Plaintiffs as Ex. PW1/1 and Sizra of the suit land as Ex. PW1/D1, compris- ing in Khasra No. 619/17 shown as Mark 'A' in the Sizra. That, PW-1 further stated during his cross-examination that:
"(xxx) I have seen the disputed land. It falls in Khasra No. 619/17. I have brought the original sajra in respect of Vill. Sidhora Khurd in which the land in question is shown. It is correct that sajra does not bear the Kh. No. i.e. 619. It is incorrect to suggest that disputed land falls in Kh. No. 621/17.
However, it falls in Kh. No. 619/17 as per my record. I do not know whether the Kh. No. 621/17 is acquired or not. I do not know also that Kh. No. 621/17 has been transferred to DDA. It is incorrect to suggest that disputed land falls in Kh. No. Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-16/28 -17- 621/17 and not in Kh. No. 619/17. The site plan/aks sajra of vill. Sidhora Khurd is Ex. PW1/D1 and the land bearing no. 619/17 is marked as A(xxx)"
[Emphasis supplied] Further, PW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar, Patwari, Land Acquisition Branch (North) Delhi testified to the effect that, Khasra No. 619/17 was not acquired at all as per records and he further tendered in evidence the Award No. 1984 as Ex. PW2/1. It is pertinent to mention that, Award No. 1984, also being relied upon by DDA, does not mention of acquisition of any Khasra being no. 619/17. Though, Khasra no. 621/17 stands acquired by the Government and has been placed at the disposal of DDA. Furthermore, in the present matter the real dispute is whether any alleged demolition was conducted by DDA at the suit land, who is in the possession of the suit land and as to the location and identification of the suit land. It is needless to mention that, the burden to prove the same rests upon the plaintiff side. Further, PW-3 was examined being the Patwari, Sadar Kanoongo (Delhi), who tendred in evidence the copy of tatima as Ex. PW3/1 and testified that, as per record, one Khasra No. 17 was divided into five parts that are Kh. No. 618/17/1, 619/17/2, 620/17/3, 621/17/4 and 622/17/5.
Further, the LR of the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-5 namely Sh. Dina Nath. PW-5 tendered in evidence Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-17/28 -18- Sale Deed dated. 25.09.1995 through which suit land was purchased by plaintiffs from one Sh. Pratap Singh as Ex. PW4/1. Further, jamabandi of the year 1982-83 has been tendered as Ex. PW4/2, copy of tatima as Ex. PW4/3, shizra as Ex. PW4/4, site plan as Ex. PW4/5, a letter written to DDA as Ex. PW4/6 and postal receipts thereof as Ex. PW4/7. The relevant excerpts from the cross- examination of PW-5 are reproduced herein below:
"[Conducted as on 22.08.2024] Q. I put it to you that the suit land is open piece of land and is lying vacant at site?
A. There is a tin shed at the suit land but the same is in damaged condition.
It is wrong to suggest that the suit land is vacant of piece of land. It is wrong to suggest that the suit land is in actual physical possession of the defendant/DDA. It is wrong to suggest that the suit land has already been acquired vide Award no.1984, thereafter its possession has been taken over by Land & Building Department in 1964 and handed over to DDA. It is wrong to suggest that the suit land belongs to and is at the disposal of the DDA.
Q. I put it to you that in para 7 of the plaint, it is wrongly stated by the plaintiff that on 30.01.1997 at about 11:00 AM, the officials of defendant visited the suit land and started demolishing a portion thereof but left the site when the plaintiff made hue and cry. What you have to say?
Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-18/28 -19- A. No demolition could be taken on 30.01.1997 because of the resistance put up by the plaintiff.
(xxx) I cannot tell the length, breadth or dimensions of the suit land. Vol. Same was never done by me. (xxx) Question: Please tell the distance of the petrol pump from the suit land? Answer: The suit land is adjacent and behind the wall of the petrol pump. I cannot tell the distance of the suit land from the petrol pump. I am not aware whether the Kalidass Marg shown in Ex. PW-4/5 is situated in Khasra No. 18/1 or not. Question: Can you tell whether the Kalidass Marg is situated in Khasra No. 18/1, 18/2 or any other Khasra number as per your knowledge?
Answer: I am not aware about the Khasra Number of the Kalidass Marg. I am not even aware about the Khasra number of the Main Road (Market) shown in Ex. PW-4/5. I cannot even tell the Khasra number of the gali shown in between the petrol pump and the suit land in Ex. PW-4/5. Question: In the Ex. PW-4/5, can you mark from where to where the Khasra No. 619/17 is situated? Answer: I did not measure.
[Conducted as on 13.09.2024, pre-lunch and post- lunch] (xxx) It is wrong to suggest that suit land is situated in Khasra no.621/17, Village Sidhora Khurd. It is wrong to suggest that since the suit land is not situated in Khasra no.619/17, therefore, only no khasra number has been mentioned in Ex.PW-4/5. (xxx) I have never made any request in writing to the patwari, kanoongo or tehsildar etc. for conducting demarcation of the suit land to Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-19/28 -20- personally visit the same. I cannot say whether other plaintiffs have made any such request or not. It is correct that the sale deed dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW-4/1 does not bear signatures of any of the plaintiffs. It is wrong to suggest that the said sale deed had not been executed in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiffs had not visited the office of the Sub-Registrar for the registration of the sale deed. I do not have the original general power of attorney executed in favour of Sh. Ishwar Singh, who had executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff. (xxx) None of the plaintiffs have ever filed any suit against Sh. Ishwar Singh, Sh. Pratap Singh, Sh. Satprakash, Sh. Bhagat Singh, Ms. Krishna or Sh. Umesh claiming any damages or compensation etc. for the alleged threat of demolition as mentioned by me in para 8 & 9 of my affidavit of evidence. (xxx) It is correct that there is no electricity or water connection installed at the suit land. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit land. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land. It is wrong to suggest that the sale deed Ex.PW-4/1 is illegal, invalid and does not convey any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff. (xxx) It is wrong to suggest that no revenue record was ever shown to any of the officials of DDA as alleged by me in para 10 of my evidence affidavit. The submissions with respect to non-acquisition of land of khasra no.619/17 were told to me by Patwari but I have personally not seen any record. (xxx) It is wrong to suggest that on 03.01.1996, no official of the DDA had visited the suit land. (xxx)"
[Emphasis Supplied] Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-20/28 -21- That, a bare perusal of the testimony of the PW-5 transpires that, firstly the sale deed has been merely tendered in evidence, but not proved by calling the attesting witness. Further, the registration of the sale deed has also not been proved by summoning the concerned official from the sub-registrar office. Secondly, PW-5 was not aware of the exact dimensions, purportedly, of his own property/suit land stating that, " I cannot tell the length, breadth or dimensions of the suit land." . Thirdly, PW-5 was not able to tell constructions and roads such as Kali Mandir, Petrol Pump, Naala and the Kalidas Marg etc. purportedly, adjacent to his own property/suit land. Fourthly, PW-5 admitted that, there is a mere tin shed as the suit land; however, neither same finds any mention in the pleadings nor in evidence affidavit of the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff is silent w.r.t dimensions and nature of built- up structure, if any as the suit land. Fifthly, PW-5 has admitted that, the sale deed dated 25.09.1995 Ex.PW-4/1 does not bear the signatures of the plaintiffs. Further, Ex.PW-4/5 i.e., the site plan obtained from a revenue office neither bears the stamp nor signature of the official. Sixthly, PW-5 further admitted that, there is no electricity or water connection at the suit land. Thus, consequently there is no proof of settled possession of the plaintiff on record w.r.t the suit land. Further, it is highly improbable as Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-21/28 -22- to whether the plaintiff is in the settled possession of the suit land since, there is a mere tin shed existing without any water and electricity connection. Seventhly, plaintiff has further admitted that, they never applied for demarcation of the suit land, since, its location and identification was challenged by DDA, whether before any revenue authority or the Vice-Chairman DDA, for the reasons best known to them. Eighthly, PW-5 has further testified that, "No demolition could be taken on 30.01.1997 because of the resistance put up by the plaintiff." It is pertinent to mention herein that, per contra, in the plaint it has been mentioned that the officials of DDA started demolishing some portion of the suit property. Furthermore, the plaint is silent w.r.t the existing structure at the suit land, if any and to what extent same was demolished, if any. Ninthly, PW-5 has further not been able to place no record and prove the chain of title in favour of the plaintiffs qua the suit property. It was stated by PW-5 during his cross-examination that, "I do not have the original general power of attorney executed in favour of Sh. Ishwar Singh, who had executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff."
Plaintiff side further got examined PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 and heavily relied upon their testimonies. PW6- Sh. Lalit Kumar Rana, Patwari from SDM Civil Lines Office. PW-6 tendered in evidence the Jamabandi year 1982-83 of Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-22/28 -23- Khasra No. 619/17 (2-16), Village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi as Ex. PW6/1 (OSR), Khatoni (2 pages) for year 1982-83 of Khasra No. 620/17 (1-4), 618/17 (0-11), 621/17 (0-16), Village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi as Ex. PW6/2 (OSR) and Field Book of Khasra No. 17 (encircled at point 'A'), Village Sidhora Khurd as Ex. PW6/3 (OSR). By virtue of testimony of PW-6, plaintiff side wished to prove that, repartitioned 5 khasra numbers includes Khasra No. 619/17 of Plaintiffs and Khasra No. 621/17 claimed by DDA and that, the land of Plaintiffs and land claimed by DDA were both part of those five Khasra Numbers which were carved out of khasra no. 17. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that, tatimas of these 5 Khasra numbers are conclusive documents to adjudicate the dispute and as per these tatimas, suit land does not situate under Khasra No. 621/17, being claimed by the DDA. Further, PW7- Sh. Dhiraj Malik, ASO from Central Record Room, Sadar Kanoongo Office, Tis Hazari, Delhi tendered in evidence the Original Inteqal no. 688 of Village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi as Ex. PW7/1(15 pages) (OSR). Further, PW8 Sh. Sanjay Arora, Planning Assistant, Town Planning Department, MCD tendered in evidence Layout Plan of Shashtri Nagar drawing no. TP/UC/2186 Ex. PW8/1 (OSR) and enlarged photocopy of right-hand portion of layout plan Ex. PW-8/1 as Ex.PW8/2. The witness PW-8 further deposed that, "On the right side of Ex.PW-8/1 under the heading notes at serial no. 8, it is written 'M', Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-23/28 -24- mosque, mandir and other R.B. The enlarged photocopy of the said right hand portion of the aforesaid layout plan (Ex. PW-8/1) is separately filed by me today and is exhibited as Ex. PW-8/2 (OSR)."
In this regard it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that, PW-6 proved the bifurcation record of Khasra No. 17 and that, as per the record the land being claimed by DDA i.e., Khasra No. 621/17 is a triangular land and said land has no sides towards the road. It was further argued that, this fact further demolishes the whole version of Defendant/DDA, since, the suit land belonging to the plaintiff is rectangular in shape and the said shape matches with Khasra no. 619/17 as shown in the site-cum-layout plan Ex. PW-4/5 and inteqal Ex. PW-7/1. Further, it was argued that, even as per the jamabandi record Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-4/2 the usage of the suit land is shown for a Kali Mandir i.e., a religious place as is proved by Ex.PW-8/1. It is further submitted that, if this map (Ex. PW-8/1 and Ex, PW-8/2) is compared with Ex. PW4/2 i.e., the jamabandi of the year 1982-1983 wherein box no. 16 mentions 'Gair Mumkin Shiv Mandir Area 2 bighas 6 Biswas'. It was thus further argued that, all these records match very precisely and establishes that suit property falls in Khasra No. 619/17 and not in Khasra no.621/17 as is being claimed by the DDA. It was further argued that mutation record also duly mentions the names of the Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-24/28 -25- plaintiff Sh. Jhungi Nath. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that, this further supports the case of the plaintiff that suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff side.
Per contra, in order to prove its case DDA got examined two witnesses i.e., DW-1 and DW-2. DW-1 being the Patwari from LAC office and DW-2 being the Patwari, LM Department, DDA tendered in evidence Award no.1984 as EX. DW-1/1; possession proceedings dated 26.09.67 as EX. DW-1/2 and Ex. DW-2/2; translated copy of Ex. DW-1/2 as EX. DW-2/3; notification dated 03.01.68 as EX. DW-2/4; Shizra plan as EX.PW-1/D1; and rough location plan as EX. DW-2/1.That, a bare perusal of the documents tendered in evidence by DDA merely mentions of acquisition of khasra no. 621/17 and no further evidence has been led to categorically prove that, the suit property actually is situated in khasra no. 621/17 being claimed by the DDA. Rather, the revenue record tendered in evidence by plaintiff side shows the existence of suit land in khasra no. 619/17 along with mutation in the name of plaintiffs. it is further pertinent to mention that there is no demarcation report on record being relied by both or even either side. Thus, there is no conclusive material on record w.r.t the clear identification and demarcation of the suit land along with all the boundaries. Furthermore, PW-5 himself was not able to mention the boundaries and dimensions of the Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-25/28 -26- suit land.
At this stage, it is further pertinent to mention that, the plaintiff in the present matter was required to prove that, he was and has been in the possession of the suit property and that, the defendant herein i.e., the DDA had infringed the legal right to possess and occupy the suit property of the plaintiff without following the due process of law. in the present matter, firstly, the plaintiff has failed in proving that on the date of alleged cause of action, the plaintiff was in the actual and physical possession of the suit land and that he still is. It is pertinent to mention that, the revenue records tenderd in evidence though raises a presumption of possession of suit land in the plaintiff however same pertains to the year 1982-1983; while, the alleged cause of action took place on 03.01.1996. Further, there is no document on record to prove that, as on the date of alleged cause of action 03.01.1996, the plaintiff was in actual physical possession of the suit land. Furthermore, PW-5 has admitted during his cross-examination that, there is tin shed at suit land but the same is in a damaged condition and further that, there is no electricity or water connection installed at the suit land. Further, PW-5 did not place any document of record to show his continuous and settled possession at the suit land since the date of alleged cause of action till date. Thus, it is evidently clear that, plaintiff side has grossly failed in proving their possession over the Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-26/28 -27- suit land, being a mandate for the seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Furthermore, plaintiff further failed to prove the factum of alleged demolition. Moreover, DDA has itself admitted in its pleadings and evidence that, no such demolition drive was conducted at Khasra no. 619/17.
It has been further held, in Balakrishna Dattaraya Galande v. Balakrishna Rambharose Gupta & Anr [SLP (C) 1509/2019], it has been held that:
"In a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, possession on the date of suit is a must for grant of permanent injunction. When the first respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in actual possession of the property on the date of the suit, he is not entitled for the decree for permanent injunction."
[Emphasis Supplied] Thus, a conjoint scrutiny of the evidences led on both the sides transpires that, plaintiff has failed in placing relevant material on record to prove the factum of possession, settled or even otherwise, the alleged act of demolition and exact dimensions and identification of the suit land for passing of a validly executable decree. Furthermore, the fundamental burden of proving this case was on the plaintiff, to be proved on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, which the plaintiff has failed to do.
Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-27/28 -28- Hence, issues no. (1) is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant.
16.Issue No. (2) -
(2) Relief - In view of the findings given on issue no. (1) pleadings of the parties and evidence led by the parties, the plaintiff has failed to prove his burden on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Let decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
Digitally signedDISHA by DISHA SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.04.30 16:51:00 +0530 (This judgment contains 28 pages and each page (DISHA SINGH) has been signed by the undersigned) Civil Judge-02, West, Announced in the open Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 30.04.2025 Suit No.606925/2016 Jhungi Nath & Ors. Vs. DDA Page-28/28