Delhi District Court
Hem Chander Ors vs Delhi Development Authority on 27 September, 2025
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16
Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
DISTRICT JUDGE -01: SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
DLSW010008462013
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No.54769/16
HEM CHANDER & ORS. Vs. DDA
1. SHRI HEM CHANDER
2. SHRI RAMDEV.
3. SHRI SUKHDEV RISHI,
SONS OF LATE SHRI DAULAT RAM RISHI,
RESIDENTS OF 33, OLD ROSHAN PURA.
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI 110043
4. SHRI KHEM CHANDER RISHI,
SON OF LATE SHRI DAULAT RAM RISHI
RESIDENT OF 8/129. OLD ROSHAN PURA,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043.
5(1) SMT. SANTOSH DEVI
WIDOW OF LATE SHRI ANAND PRAKASH.
5(ii) SHRI AJAY KUMAR,
SON OF LATE SHRI ANAND PRAKASH,
5(iii) SHRI ARUN KUMAR
5(i-iii) SONS OF LATE SHRI ANAND PRAKASH.
6. SHRI KIRTI RISHI
SON OF LATE SHRI DAULAT RAM
RESIDENT OF 8/129, OLD ROSHAN PURA NAJAFGARH,
1/37
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16
Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
NEW DELHI-110043.
7. SMT. CHANDER KANTA
WIFE OF SHRI JOGINDER LAL,
RESIDENT OF 14, OLD ROSHAN PURA,
NAJAFGARH. NEW DELHI-110043.
8. SMT. BRIJ SHANTA,
WIFE OF SHRI BALDEV RAJ,
RESIDENT OF 49, OLD RC SHAN PURA,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI 110043.
9. SMT. VEERANWALI,
WIFE OF SHRI NETRA PRAKASH,
RESIDENT OF 46, NEW ROSHAN PURA,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043.
10. SMT. KAMLESH KUMARI,
WIFE OF SHRI KISHORE KUMAR,
RESIDENT OF, 242, NAWADA BAZAAR,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043. ......APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
(THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN),
VIKAS SADAN, Ι.Ν.Α., NEW DELHI-110023. .....RESPONDENT
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 54707/16
DDA VS. HEM CHANDER & ORS.
DLSW010001362013
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN
VIKAS SADAN, Ι.Ν.Α.,
NEW DELHI .........APPELLANT
2/37
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16
Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
VERSUS
1. SH. HEM CHANDER,
S/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM
2. SH. RAMDEV
S/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM
3. SH. SUKHDEV RISHI
S/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM
ALL RESIDENT OF
33, OLD ROSHANPURA, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043
4. SH. KHEM CHANDER,
S/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM
5. SMT. SANTOSH DEVI
W/O LATE SH. ANAND PRAKASH RISHI,
6. SH. ARUN KUMAR,
S/O LATE SH. ANAND PRAKASH RISHI
7. SHRI AJAY KUMAR,
S/O LATE SH. ANAND PRAKASH RISHI,
8. SH. KIRTI SHARMA,
S/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 8 ARE RESIDENT OF
8/129, OLD ROSHANPURA.
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043
9. SMT. CHANDER KANTA
W/O SH. JOGINDER LAL,
D/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM
R/O 14, OLD ROSHANPURA,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043
3/37
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16
Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
10. SMT. BRIJ SHANTA,
W/O SH. BALDEV RAJ,
D/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM
R/O 49, OLD ROSHANPURA,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043
11. SMT. VEERAWALI,
W/O SH. NETAR PARKASH,
D/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM
R/O 46, OLD ROSHANPURA,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043
12. SMT. KAMLESH KUMARI,
W/O SH. KISHORE KUMAR,
D/O LATE SH. DAULAT RAM,
R/O 242, NAWADA BAZAR,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI-110043 .........RESPONDENTS
Date of Filing(Appeal no.54769/16) : 03.10.2013
Date of Filing(Appeal no.54707/16) : 12.11.2013
Date of Final Arguments : 26.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.09.2025
Appearances: Sh. Mohit Ramdeo, Ld.counsel for appellants in RCA Civil
DJ ADJ No.54769/16 and for respondents in RCA Civil DJ
ADJ no.54707/16
Ms. Nishtha Chawla, Ld.counsel for Delhi Development
Authority(DDA).
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment I shall decide two separate appeals bearing no. 54769/16 titled as Hem Chander & Ors. VS. DDA and appeal no.54707/16 titled as DDA Vs. Hem Chander preferred against the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2013 passed by the court of Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Ld., Civil Judge(West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in suit no.1006/06 titled as Hem Chander & Ors. Vs. DDA.
4/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
2. The appeal and the counter appeal have been filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant/DDA against the judgment dated 27.08.2013 passed by Ld.Trial Court, therefore in order to avoid the confusion, the parties are mentioned as per their litigative status in the main suit.
BRIEF FACTS 3.1. The appellants in the appeal no.54769/16 i.e. Sh. Hem Chander & ors. are the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff namely Sh. Daulat Ram, who had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Delhi Development Authority(DDA) before the Ld. Trial Court. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the lawful owner in actual and physical possession of the land bearing khasra no. 44/1 (0-18), 30/21 (1-03), 30/20/2 (1-04), 43/5 (4-02) and 31/25 (4-16) situated in Village Haibat Pur, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi along with other lands as detailed in the jamabandi for the year 1985-86. It is stated that the plaintiff constructed a 'Shiv temple' in the lands of khasra no. 44/1 nearly 22 years ago and also constructed a 'Samadhi' of his wife in the said lands in the year 1983 and the said facts are also duly recorded and mentioned in the revenue record.
3.2 It is also stated that the plaintiff is also the lawful allottee of pre- consolidated lands of khasra no. 537 (9-05) situated in Village Haibatpur, New Delhi vide certificates of allotment dated 19.08.1948 issued by the Custodian Department. It is stated that after consolidation in the year 1966, the khasra number of the above said land was changed as khasra no. 44/26 (8-14). That the plaintiff is also stated to be in actual and physical possession of the land of khasra no. 30/26 (10-09) situated in Village Haibatpur, Delhi for the last 45 years as the said land of khasra no. 30/26 is situated adjoining the lands of khasra no. 44/26.
5/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
3.3. It is stated that the plaintiff has now permanently been allotted khasra no. 30/26 (10-09) and khasra no. 44/26 (8-14), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi by the Managing Officer, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi vide his order dated 30.12.1998 and a Sanad bearing no. LAO/KGO/Haibatpur/1485 has been issued. It is further stated that both khasra no. 44/26 and khasra no. 30/26 as per revenue records have been shown in favour of the Gaon Sabha, whereas in view of permanent allotment made in favour of the plaintiff, the ownership has to be declared in favour of the plaintiff and as such the gaon sabha or DDA has no right, title or interest whatsoever in respect of the said two khasra numbers. That the plaintiff is in actual and physical possession of the lands of khasra no. 44/1 (0-18), 30/21 (1-03), 30/20/2 (1-04), 43/5 (4-02), 44/26 (8-14), 30/26 (10-09) and 31/25 (4-16) situated in Village Haibat Pur, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3.4. That the suit property has not been acquired by the government nor the same was ever notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and as such the defendant has nothing to do with the suit property. However, the officials of the DDA visited the suit property on 20.02.1994 alongwith some labourers at about 11:00 AM and tried to take forcible possession of the suit property by illegal and unlawful means and also tried to demolish the 'Shiv Temple' and dismantle the 'Samadhi' situated in khasra no. 44/1 and threatened to fix barbed wire around the suit property. That the defendant could not succeed due to timely intervention of the plaintiff and his family members but threatened to come again with more force.
3.5. The plaintiff had initially filed the present suit seeking the decree of permanent injunction against the defendant/DDA, thereby restraining the 6/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
defendant, its agents, employees, officers, contractors and labourers etc, from interferring in any manner in the peaceful possession, occupation and use of the plaintiff over the land in dispute bearing Khasrá No. 44/1 (0-18), 43/5(4-02), 30/21(1-03), 30/20/2 (1. (1-04) 31/25(4-16) and 44/26(8-14) and 30/26 (10-09) situated in village Habitpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi and also from demolishing the 'Shiv Temple' and 'Samadhi' being constructed by the plaintiff in the lands of Khasra No. 44/1 (0-18) situated in village Habitpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi, without due process of law. Thereafter the plaintiff moved an application under order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application was allowed vide order dated 09.02.2000, and the amended plaint for declaration and permanent injunction was taken on record. In the amended suit, the plaintiff alongwith the prayer of permanent injunction, also added the prayer of declaration to the effect that khasra no. 44/26 (8-14) Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi belongs to and is owned by the plaintiff and not by gaon sabha, in view of permanent allotment made by the Managing Officer, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi vide his order dated 30.12.1998 and a Sanad bearing no. LAC/KGO/Haibatpur/1485.
4. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of trial the plaintiff Daulat Ram had expired on 13.01.2004. The Lrs of deceased plaintiff moved an application under order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for their substitution. The said application was allowed by Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2004 and the Lrs of deceased plaintiff were substituted.
5.1. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant/DDA. The defendant/DDA on being served put the appearance and filed written statement. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant/DDA, it is stated that the 7/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
mandatory notice under Section 53B Delhi Development Act has not been served and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. It is stated that the plaintiffs want much more than a mere relief of injunction and therefore the suit is not maintainable in the present form. It is stated that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts with ulterior motives to grab the DDA land under the garb of the present suit. It is stated that the land falling in khasra no. 44/26 of Village Haibatpur is a gaon sabha land measuring 8 bigha 14 biswa and on the urbanization of the Village, the same has been placed at the disposal of DDA vide notification bearing no. SO No. 2190 dated 20.08.1974.
5.2. That the land has further been transferred to the Horticulture Department of DDA on 29.06.1981. That the north part of the temple and samadhi fall in khasra no. 44/26 min. which is a DDA land. It is denied that the temple and samadhi were constructed over khasra no. 44/1(0.8 biswa). It is also denied that the land of khasra no. 30/26 is adjacent to khasra no. 44/26.
6. After completion of pleadings of parties issues were framed vide order dated 23.02.1996 and 02.05.2001:-
1. Whether the plaintiff seeks much more than the relief of injunction? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice U/s 53 B of DD Act? OPD.
3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
4. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for?OPP
6. Relief.8/37
RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP
8. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this case? OPP
7. Thereafter the matter was fixed for plaintiff evidence. The plaintiff in support of his case examined four witnesses i.e. PW Sh. Inderjit Patwari, PW-2 Sh. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, PW-3 Sh. Daulat Ram(original plaintiff, since expired) and PW-4 Sh. Nagender Sah, UDC from Land and Building Department. PE was closed on 28.09.2006. After completion of plaintiff's evidence, matter was fixed for DE.
8. In defence, the defendant/DDA examined two witnesses i.e. DW-1 Sh. Brij Lal, Deputy Director, DDA and Sh. Baljeet Rathi, Kanungo, DDA as DW-2.
9. After completion of evidence of the parties, final arguments were heard and the suit was partly decreed vide judgment dated 27.08.2013 as under:-
"In view of the facts of the case, the suit is partly decreed. DDA, its agents, employees, etc are restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over khasra no 44/1 and khasra no 30/26 and from demolishing the Shiv temple and samadhi therein without due process of law. In view of the facts of the case, parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly after payment of deficit Court fees."
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013, both the parties have preferred separate appeals on different grounds. The appeal 9/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
bearing no. 54769/16 has been filed by the plaintiffs Hem Chander & Ors. and the another appeal no.54707/16 has been preferred by the defendant/DDA.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN 54769/16 TITLED AS HEM CHANDER VS.
DDA FILED BY PLAINTIFF.
11.1. It is stated in the appeal that the judgment dated 27.08.2013 is against law of land and facts of the case. It is stated that as per DLR act, jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred only in those cases which are mentioned in Schedule annexed with the said Act and apart from those cases, any other case can be filed in, and tried by the Civil Court. That there is no provision in the DLR Act which could entitle appellants to approach the Revenue Court for seeking declaration qua their ownership of the land in khasra no.44/26. It is stated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants had filed the suit for their declaration as owner in land in khasra no.44/26 and not seeking rectification of revenue entries, hence, the suit was ought to be allowed by the Ld.Trial Court.
11.2 That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the documents qua allotment of khasra No. 44/26 i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.1/3 & 4/1 have neither been disputed by the respondent, nor any evidence has been led by respondent to disprove those documents, which clearly establish case of the appellants and entitle them to a decree of declaration qua land in khasra No. 44/26. That the Ld. Trial Court erred in law by holding that appellants are aggrieved of wrong entries in the revenue record. That even if it is assumed that the land in khasra No. 44/26 is of gaon sabha, even then DDA has no right, title or interest in the same.
10/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
11.3 That the documents Ex.PW-3/1 to Ex. PW3/4 clearly shows that land in khasra No. 44/26 (erstwhile No. 537) was allotted to deceased Shri Daulat Ram and the entries of revenue record have no impact on its ownership.
11.4 That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellants had not sought to be declared as Bhumidars but had sought declaration that they are owners of land in khasra no.44/26. That in view of documents placed on record by the appellants, there is no requirement for the appellants to seek bhumidari rights as the same is custodian land and DLR Act is not applicable on the same.
11.5 That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the deposition of DW-2(Sh. Baljeet Rathi, Kanungo, DDA) is totally vague, disbelievable and does not carry any value in the eyes of law.
11.6 That the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act are not applicable in the present case. It is prayed that in view of above grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2013 may kindly be set aside.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT/DDA.
12.1. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent. A detailed reply to the appeal on behalf of respondent/DDA has been filed. It is stated in the reply that the Ld. Trial court has rightly decided the issues no.1, 3, 7, 8 and partly issues no.5 and 6. That being aggrieved by the decision on issue no.2, 4 and partly issue no.5 and 6 the respondent has also filed cross appeal.
12.2 It is denied that the judgment dated 27.08.2013 is against the law of land. It is denied that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law to hold that the suit is 11/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
barred by Section 185 of the DLR Act. The grounds(A to M) of appeal are specifically denied. It is stated that the prayer made in the appeal are false, fabricated, baseless, concocted, frivolous and vexatious. It is prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN 54707/16 TITLED AS DDA VS. HEM CHANDER FILED BY THE DEFENDANT/DDA.
13.1. It is stated that the Ld.Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment in gross violation and grave contravention of the all rules, laws and guidelines that govern such suits and is shockingly arbitrary and illegal, in entirety. That the Ld. Trial Court has decreed the suit in a totally arbitrary, whimsical and unjust manner on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
13.2 That the Ld. Trial Court has committed error by not considering the entire suit and prayer of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs are seeking the relief of declaration also for that notice under Section 53B DD Act is required to be served prior to filing of the case being mandatory. That the Ld. Trial Court totally ignored the testimony of the PW3(plaintiff Daulat Ram) and DW1(Sh. Brij Lal, Deputy Director, DDA) & 2(Sh. Baljeet Rathi, Kanungo, DDA) as by their deposition it has been proved that no notice has been served upon DDA U/sec. 53B of DD Act.
13.3 That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the cross examination of PW2 and PW3 who has admitted that the land under dispute falls in Khasra No. 44/26 of Village Haibatpur. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the Ex. PW3/8 i.e. Khasra Girdawari which indicates that the 'Mundan Sthan' falls in Khasra No. 44/26 which belongs to Gram Sabha and transferred to DDA.
12/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
That the Ld. Trial court ignored the admission of PW3 in his affidavit that there is a 'Mundan Sthan' in Khasra No. 44/26 adjoining to Khasra No. 44/1.
13.4 That the Ld. Trial Court totally ignored the demarcation report dated 12.01.2012, which was carried out at the direction of Sh. K.K. Tandon, Court Commissioner, High Court (Ponds) which has been proved by the DW2 who has signed the same, as he was present during demarcation. That the Ld. Trial Court wrongly recorded that DDA could not say as to how much area of Khasra No. 44/26 has been encroached by the plaintiffs whereas a bare perusal of the demarcation report EX DW2/1 clearly shows the encroached area in blocks and also give the exact measurements of area of encroachment which is mentioned as 17 bigha 16 biswa.
13.5 It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has not considered the complaint dated 09.02.2001 to the Commissioner of Police, South West District, regarding the encroachment by the plaintiffs. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the deposition of DW1 and DW2 who have specifically deposed and proved that the plaintiffs under the garb of Khasra No. 44/1 has encroached the land falling in Khasra No. 44/26 and the suit land falls in Khasra No. 44/26. That the Ld. Trial Court also ignored the statement of PW1 Halqa Patwari, who has brought the Khasra Girdawari and deposed that it is not indicated in the Khasra Girdawari brought by him in case 'Shiv Mandir' and 'Samadhi' exists in the aforesaid Khasra No. 44/1.
13.6 That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Plaintiffs have not filed any record to show that Samadhi and Temple falls in Khasra No. 44/1. That the Ld. Trial Court has committed error by giving declaration in the form 13/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
of injunction i.e. restrained the Defendant/DDA from demolishing the 'Shiv Temple' and 'Samadhi' therein. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs have unauthorizedly and illegally constructed the temple and Samadhi on the land which falls in Khasra No. 44/26, which is a Govt. Land (Gaon Sabha and presently at the disposal of the DDA.
13.7. It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the land falling in Khasra No. 44/26 of Village Haibatpur is a gaon sabha land measuring 8 Bigha 14 Bigha and on the urbanization of the Village, the same has been placed at the disposal of DDA Vide Notification bearing no. SO No. 2190 dated 20.08.1974 and thereafter the said land has been further transferred to the Horticulture Department of DDA on 29.06.1981.
13.8 It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly decided the issue No. 4 against the DDA whereas it was clearly proved on record that the plaintiffs/respondents were trying to encroach over the government land. That the Ld. Trial Court wrongly decided issues No. 2, 4 and 5 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the appellant by ignoring the factual position of the status of the land under dispute.
13.9 It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff have failed to prove any document which showed that they are the owner of the suit property or the Mandir and Samadhi wholly and exclusively fall in Khasra No. 41/1. That the Ld. Trial Court wrongly burdened the Appellant/DDA to discharge the onus of proving that the suit property falls under the Khasra which was transferred to DDA.
14/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
13.10 That the impugned judgment passed by Ld. Trial Court suffers from glaring infirmities and are not inconformity with the provisions of CPC. It is prayed that in view of grounds of appeal, the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2013 and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed by Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set aside.
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS 14.1 Notice of the appeal was issued to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs on being served, put appearance through counsel and contested the present appeal. A detailed reply to the present appeal is filed. It is submitted that the appeal under reply is misuse of process of law and there is no substance in the same.
14.2 That the present appeal is a counter blast to the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. That the appellant has failed to show any valid and/or grounds for challenging the judgment of Ld. Trial Court, which could entitle it for any relief claimed in the present appeal. That the appeal is highly time barred and no cogent reasons have been forwarded for the same. That the appellant is guilty of concealment, distortion and misrepresentation of real facts and circumstances. The averments on merits are denied. It is stated that the appeal being misuse of process of law and being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT/DDA.
15. I have already heard the detailed arguments advanced by Sh. Mohit Ram Deo, Ld.counsel for appellant/plaintiff and Ms. Nishtha Chawla, Ld.counsel for respondent/DDA. Detailed written submissions by both the 15/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
parties also filed on record. Ld.counsel for plaintiff and defendant have argued in terms of their contentions raised in their respective appeals.
16. During the course of arguments it is submitted by Ld.counsel for the plaintiffs that the the plaintiffs wants to restrict their claim with regard to the land in khasra no.44/1(0-18) and khasra no.44/26(08 bigha 14 biswa). The statement of the plaintiffs Hem Chander and Sh. Ram Dev Rishi and of Sh. Mohit Ramdeo, Ld.counsel for appellant and no objection of Ms. Nishtha Chawla, Ld.counsel for defendant/DDA is recorded on 26.09.2025.
17. It is well settled law that the plaintiff is having the right to relinquish any part of the claim during the pendency of proceedings. Therefore, in view of statement made by the plaintiffs and no objection of defendant/DDA, the plaintiffs are allowed to relinquish the relief with regard to all other properties/lands except the land situated in khasra no.44/1(0-18) and khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa), Village Haibatpur, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi.
18. In view of above, now I will proceed to examine the appeal and cross appeal only with regard to rights of the parties for the land situated in khasra no. 44/1(0-18) and khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa), Village Haibatpur, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
19. This is the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs and cross appeal filed by the defendant/DDA under the provisions of Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 passed by Ld.Trial Court. The scope of first appeal under Section 96 of CPC gives the court power to comprehensively 16/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
review the trial court judgment including both on question of law and the fact. The first appeal is a statutory right provided to a person who is adversely effected by the decree passed in original suit. The appellate court is required to give a detailed analysis of the case by addressing all the issues, examine the evidence and apply its judicial mind to all the contentions, before giving the findings on the contention of parties. The primary purpose of first appeal is to correct any error in the judgment, to prevent miscarriage of justice by adopting a structured method to analyse the decision of the trial court. The first appeal gives the jurisdiction to the appellate court for re-examining of both facts and law in the decree from the original jurisdiction. The first appellate court is required to address all the issues, record findings, deal with reasons with application of judicial mind to the whole matter.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Malluru Mallappa Vs. Kuruvathappa, reported as 2020 SCC Online SC 174 has restated the meaning and scope of the first appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the proper mode of exercising appellate jurisdiction especially by the first appellate court and clarified that the provisions of order 41 Rule 31 are mandatory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to held as under:-
"The expression "appeal" has not been defined in CPC. It is a judicial examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of a subordinate court to rectify any possible error in the order under appeal. The law provides the remedy of an appeal because of the recognition that those manning the judicial tiers too commit errors. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as on fact, unless the statute conferring a right of appeal limits the rehearing in some way as has been done in second appeal arising under CPC. (Paras 10 and 11) The essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted and does not create that cause. The 17/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms and, indeed, in any form in which the legislature may choose to prescribe. An appeal is a process of civil law origin and removes a cause, entirely subjecting the fact as well as the law, to a review and a retrial. (Para 12) It is a settled position of law that an appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original court. Ordinarily, the appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing on law as well as on fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. The first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and therein all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for reconsideration. Therefore, the first appellate court is required to address itself to all the issues and decide the case by giving reasons. The court of first appeal must record its findings only after dealing with all issues of law as well as fact and with the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led by the parties. The judgment of the first appellate court must display conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all issues and contentions. (Para 13) A first appeal under Section 96 CPC is entirely different from a second appeal under Section 100. Section 100 CPC expressly bars second appeal unless a question of law is involved in a case and the question of law so involved is substantial in nature. (Para 14) Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state:
(a) the points for determination;
(b) the decision thereon;
(c) the reasons for the decision; and
(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the rellef to which the appellant is entitled.
The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues 18/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Paras 15 and 17) The judgment of the first appellate court has to set out points for determination, record the decision thereon and give its own reasons. Even when the first appellate court affirms the judgment of the trial court, it is required to comply with the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 and non-observance of this requirement leads to infirmity in the judgment of the first appellate court. No doubt, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate effect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by the trial court. Expression of a general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suffice. (Para 18)"
21. In the light of above case law, now I will proceed further to decide the contentions raised by the plaintiff and the defendant/DDA in their respective appeal and counter appeal.
22. In the present case the appeal and the cross appeal have been filed by the appellant and defendant against the judgment and decree of the Ld. Trial Court. Therefore, keeping in view the settled principle of first appeal, I am inclined to re-examine the law and the facts relating to the matter in issue. In view of above, now I proceed to examine the findings of Ld. Trial Court on each of the issues.
ISSUE NO.1 "1. Whether the plaintiff seeks much more than the relief of injunction? OPD"
19/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
23.1. It is contended by the defendant in the written statement that the plaintiff wants much more than the relief of injunction, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law. However, it is relevant to mention that during the pendency of suit, the plaintiff had moved an application under order VI Rule 17 CPC and incorporated the relief of declaration with regard to the ownership of the land situated in the khasra no.44/1 and 44/26. Therefore, the objection raised by DDA had become infructuous.
23.2. Secondly the defendant/DDA has failed to explain how and in which manner the plaintiff is seeking the relief beyond the injunction. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction for protection of his possession over the suit property. Therefore by no stretch of imagination, it can not be said that the plaintiff is seeking more than the relief of injunction in the garb of injunction.
23.3 In view of above, this issue no.1 is decided against the defendant/DDA and in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of Ld. Trial Court with regard to issue no.1 are set aside.
ISSUE NO.2
"2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice U/s 53 B of DD Act? OPD."
24.1 The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant/DDA. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the relief of injunction. It is contended by the defendant/DDA that the plaintiff has failed to serve the mandatory notice under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. In the appeal it is stated that the Ld. Trial Court has committed the 20/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
error by not considering that the plaintiffs are seeking the relief of declaration, therefore, the notice under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act is required to be served prior to filing of present case.
24.2. It is an admitted case that the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction on 23.02.1994. It is an admitted case that the plaintiff at the time of filing of suit for permanent injunction has not served any notice under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act. The relevant provision is required to be reproduced for consideration.
24.3. Section 53B of The Delhi Development Act provides as under:-
Notice to be given of suits.--(1) No suit shall be instituted against the Authority, or any member thereof, or any of its officers or other employees, or any person acting under the directions of the Authority or any member or any officer or other employee of the Authority in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been, in the case of the Authority, left at its office, and in any other case, delivered to, or left at the office or place of abode of, the person to be sued and unless such notice states explicitly the cause of action, the nature of relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed and the name and place of residence of the intending plaintiff and unless the plaint contains a statement that such notice has been so left or delivered.
(2) No suit such as is described in sub-section (1) shall, unless it is a suit for recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto, be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date on which the cause of action arises. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to apply to a suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit.] 21/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
24.4. It is no doubt true that the bar of Section 53B of The Delhi Development Act is not applicable to the suit for injunction. However, the DDA has raised the plea that during pendency of the suit the plaintiff included the relief of the declaration without service of notice under Section 53 of The Delhi Development Act.
24.5. The plaintiff had moved the application under order VI Rule 17 CPC which was allowed vide order dated 09.02.2000 by the Ld. Trial Court. It is relevant to note that the defendant/DDA has not raised any objection regarding applicability of Section 53B of The Delhi Development Act after inclusion of the relief of declaration.
24.6. It is not out of place to mention that additional issues were framed after amendment/addition of relief of declaration on 02.05.2001 but the defendant/DDA has failed to raise any objection or pressed for framing of issues with regard to the bar of Section 53B of The Delhi Development Act relating to the relief of declaration. In the absence of any plea raised by the defendant/DDA or the issue framed in this regard, there was no occasion before the Ld. Trial Court to give any finding on that issue/contention. In the absence of any issue framed with regard to applicability of Section 53B of The Delhi Development Act with regard to the relief of declaration, the plea raised by the appellant/defendant DDA in the appeal is not tenable in the eyes of law.
24.7. On this issue I have also placed reliance upon one judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Col. A. B. Singh(through LRs) Vs. Shri Chunni Lal Sawhney and others(RFA no.96/2002) decided on 05.10.2011 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:-
22/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
"In any case, this issue is no longer res integra in as much as, it has been held by division bench judgment of this court in "Yashoda Kumari V/s MCD and Others (AIR 2004 Delhi 225)," that once there is a contest to the suit, the suit cannot be held to be barred for not giving of notice U/S 53B of DD Act in as much as the basic object of Section-53B, like Section-80 CPC is to prevent the matters from coming to court and once the matter reach the court and are contested the suit should not be dismissed on such technical grounds"
24.8. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1992 and was pending since till today. The relief of injunction sought by the plaintiff could have become infructuous in case such notice of two months was served upon the defendant/DDA. Therefore, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court Col. A. B. Singh(supra), the non service of notice under Section 53B of the The Delhi Development Act can not be held to be fatal to justify the dismissal of the suit on the ground of maintainability. Hence it is held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by virtue of Section 53B of The Delhi Development Act. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant. The findings of Ld. Trial Court with regard to issue no.2 are upheld.
ISSUE NO.3 "3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD"
25.1 The Ld. Trial Court has decided the issue no.3 as under:-
"The onus of proving this issue was on the defendant. Plaintiffs have prayed for two fold reliefs in the present suit: declaration and injunction. The suit has been valued at Rs 130/- only on which Rs 13/-has been affixed as Court fees. It 23/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
appears that the relief of declaration has not been valued at all which should have been valued at least at Rs 200/- for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are directed to make up the deficiency in Court fees. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant/DDA"
25.2 The findings of Ld. Trial Court with regard to issue no.3 have not been assailed by the plaintiff or the defendant/DDA during the course of appeal. Even otherwise, the findings of Ld. Trial Court on issue no.3 are in consonance with the provisions of law and does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the finding of Ld. Trial with regard to issue no.3 are upheld.
ISSUE NO.4
4. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD"
26.1. The findings of Ld. Trial Court on issue no.4 is challenged by the defendant/DDA by way of counter appeal. The Ld. Trial Court has made the following observation while deciding the issue no.4:-
"In view of order Ex PW3/3 which recommends allotment of khasra no 44/26 to plaintiffs, sanad Ex PW3/1 which records that plaintiffs have been allotted khasra no 44/26 and letter Ex PW4/1 which records that khasra no 44/26 cannot be gaon sabha land, the case of plaintiffs cannot be said to be utterly frivolous so as to hold that plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands".
26.2 It is contended by the defendant/DDA that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts with ulterior motives to grab the land under the garb of present suit. It is stated that the land falling in khasra no.44/26 was vested with gaon sabha.
24/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
26.3 The plaintiff has filed the present suit with regard to khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa) on the ground that the same was allotted to him by the Department of Land and Building, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. The plaintiff in this regard has produced the allotment letter issued by the Department of Land and Building, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi as Ex. PW3/2. The said allotment letter is also proved by PW-4 Sh. Nagender Shah, UDC, Land and Building Department, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi. In view of above, there is no concealment or suppression of the material facts by the plaintiff. The contention raised by the defendant/DDA in this regard is not tenable in the eyes of law. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/DDA. The findings of Ld. Trial Court with regard to issue no.4 are upheld.
ISSUE NO.5 & 7"5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for?OPP"
& "7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP"
27.1 Both these issues are interconnected and dependent upon each other, therefore, both these issues are taken for disposal together.
27.2 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction. The prayer made by the plaintiff in the original & amended plaint is reproduced as under.
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendant, its agents, employees, 25/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
officers, contractors and labourers etc, from interffering in any manner in the peaceful possession, occupation and use of the plaintiff over the land in dispute bearing Khasrá No. 44/1 (0-18), 43/5(4-02), 30/21(1-03), 30/20/2 (1. (1-04) 31/25(4-16) and 44/26(8-14) and 30/26 (10-09) situated in village Habitpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi and also from demolishing the Shiv Temple and Samadhi being constructed by the plaintiff in the lands of Khasra NO. 44/1 (0-18) situated in village Habitpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi, without due process of law, in the interest of justice."
27.3 In view of statements of parties recorded on 26.09.2025, now the controversy which is required to be decided is only with regard to khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa) and khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa), situated in village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
27.4 The plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction only with regard to the land situated in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Therefore, first I will decide the fact whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction with regard to this property.
27.5. The plaintiff claims himself to be the lawful owner and in actual possession of the land in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa) and relied upon the jamabandi, khasra girdawari and aksh shajra in support of his submissions. It is also stated by the plaintiff that a 'Shiv Temple' was also constructed over the land in khasra no.44/1, 22 years ago and samadhi of the wife of the plaintiff was constructed in the year 1983. It is also pleaded by the plaintiff that he is the lawful allottee of pre consolidated land of khasra no.537 vide certificate of allotment dated 19.08.1948 issued by the Custodian Department/ Land and Building Department, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi and after consolidation which took place in the year 1996 the khasra number of 26/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
the said land was changed as 44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa). That since the date of allotment of this land, the plaintiff is in actual and physical possession of the same.
27.6 The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the defendant/DDA who attempted to demolish the construction/interference in the possession.
27.7 The perusal of the written statement/amended written statement filed by the defendant/DDA makes it clear that the ownership/possession of the plaintiff with regard to land situated in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa) is not disputed. The Ld. Trial Court with regard to land in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa) has observed that PW-1 Sh. Inderjeet, Patwari, Halqa Najafgarh, Delhi has deposed that the khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa) is in the possession of the plaintiff and houses are built over the same. The khasra girdavari Ex. PW3/5 and Ex. DW2/P1 also records that there is a 'Temple' and 'Samadhi' over the land in khasra no.44/1 which is under the ownership of the plaintiffs. PW-2 Sh. Goverdhan Lal Sharma and PW-3 plaintiff Sh. Daulat Ram have also deposed that the 'Samadhi' and 'Temple' are situated in khasra no.44/1. DW1 Sh. Brij Lal, Deputy Director, Horticulture Deparment, DDA and Sh. Baljeet Rathi, Kanungo, DDA have also not disputed that the land in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa) is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. In the absence of any pleadings and evidence brought on record by the defendant/DDA, I have no hesitation to held that the plaintiff is able to prove his ownership qua the land situated in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
27.8 In view of aforesaid discussions, the plaintiff is held entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/DDA from interfering in 27/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
any manner in the peaceful possession, occupation and use of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi and also from demolishing the 'Shiv temple' and 'Samadhi' constructed by the plaintiff in the land in khasra no.44/1, without due process of law.
27.9 The plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration as under:-
"Declaring that Khasra No. 44/26 (8-14), village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi, belong to and owned by the plaintiff and not by Gaon Sabha, in view of permanent allotment made by the Managing Officer, Delhi, vide his order dated 30.12.1998 and a Sanad bearing No. LAG/ the KGO/Haibatpur/1485 issued to the plaintiff in his favour"
27.10 The plaintiff has also sought the relief of permanent injunction with regard to land situated in khasra no.44/26(8-14), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The plaintiff has pleaded that the he is lawful allottee of pre- consolidated land vide certificate of allotment dated 19.08.1948 by the Custodian Department and after consolidation which took place in Village Haibatpur in the year 1966, the khasra number of the said land was changed to khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa) and since the date of allotment of this land, the plaintiff is in actual possession of the land. On the other hand the defendant/DDA in its written statement stated that the khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa) on the urbanization of the village, was placed at the disposal of DDA vide notification no.SA no.2190 dated 20.08.1974 and the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the same. It is stated that the land in khasra no.44/26 is a government land of Gaon Sabha and transferred to DDA after urbanization and 28/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
the said land stands to Horticulture Department of the DDA on 29.06.1981. That the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the said land.
27.11 The plaintiff in order to prove the right, title or interest over the land in khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa) has examined four witnesses i.e.PW-1 Sh. Inderjit, Patwari, Halqa Najafgarh, Delhi, PW-2 Sh.Goverdhan Lal Sharma, PW-3 the plaintiff Daulat Ram himself and PW-4 Sh. Nagender Shah, UDC from Land and Building Department, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.
27.12 PW-1 Sh. Inderjit, Patwari, Halqa Najafgarh, Delhi has deposed that the land in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biaswa) belongs to Gaon Sabha land as per khatoni for the year 1994. It is further stated by the witness that he can not say as to who is in the possession of the khasra no.44/26. During the cross- examination it is admitted by the witness that the khasra no.30/26 and 44/26 are adjacent. It is re-affirmed during the cross-examination that as per khatoni for the year 1993-94 the suit land in khasra no.44/26 is shown and belonging to Gaon Sabha and in the column with reference to the possession, the same has been left blank. He deposed that he does not know in case after urbanization the Gaon Sabha land is vested with Central Government. He also deposed that as per record there is no indication that the land in khasra no.44/26 has been transferred to DDA.
27.13 PW-2 Sh.Goverdhan Lal Sharma who is resident of the village of the plaintiff has deposed that the lands were allotted in the year 1948 by the Custodian Department in favour of the plaintiff. That the land in khasra no.44/26 are now in the possession of the plaintiff ever since 1948. That the plaintiff has 29/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
levelled the said lands in two khasra numbers and has been cultivating the said land since then. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the land in khasra no.44/26 was ever the land of Gaon Sabha. It is stated that the land of the khasra no.44/26 was allotted to Sh. Daulat Ram and he had seen the title papers of the said land.
27.14 PW-3 the plaintiff Daulat Ram has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit and deposed in terms of the plaint. The plaintiff has relied upon the allotment letter of land in khasra no.537, which was allotted to him by the Custodian Department in the year 1948. The original copy of the allotment letter is proved as Ex. PW3/2. The plaintiff has deposed that the earlier khasra no.537 was changed to khasra no.44/26 after consolidation. It is stated that the khasra no.44/26 and 30/26 have been sold to the plaintiff by the Department of Land and Building, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi and a permanent Sanad has been issued to him by the said department. The said sanad is proved as Ex. PW3/1. The certified copy of the order dated 30.12.1998 passed by Managing Officer, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan is proved as Ex. PW3/3. It is stated by the plaintiff that no mutation order has been passed with regard to khasra no.44/26 till date. It is stated that in connection with the mutation of khasra no.44/26, in his name, a communication dated 01.04.1999 has been addressed by the Managing Officer(E. P. Cell) to the Tehsildar, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Copy of the same is marked as mark A but the entries are not yet up to date. It is stated by the plaintiff that there is 'mundan sathan' in khasra no.44/26. It is stated that the 'Mundan Sathan' has been reflected in the khasra girdawari for the year 1971-72 Ex.PW3/8, shajra aks of 1952 Ex. PW3/10. The photographs of 'Mandir', 'Samadhis' and 'Mundan Sathan' are proved as Ex. PW3/11 to Ex.PW3/14. It is stated that the Gaon Sabha never came into the 30/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
possession of the khasra no.537(changed to khasra no.44/26 during consolidation) and since 1948 he is in possession. PW-3/plaintiff Sh. Daulat Ram was cross-examined at length by the defendant/DDA but even after lengthy cross-examination of the plaintiff, nothing incriminating has come on record.
27.15 PW-4 Sh. Nagender Shah, UDC is the witness summoned from Land and Building Department, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi who produced the relevant summoned record. PW-4 proved the order dated 30.12.98 signed by Sh. Pyare Lal, Managing Officer, which has already been proved as PW3/3. PW-4 has also proved the letter bearing no.MO/EP Cell, Haibatpur/99/DP-368 dated 01.04.199 signed by Sh. Pyare Lal, Managing Officer as Ex. PW4/1 as per which the permanent allotment rights have been conferred to the plaintiff with respect to the khasra no.30/26 and 44/26(19 bigha 03 biswa), Village Hiabatpur, Delhi and it is also clarified in the said letter that a permanent allotment sanad has been prepared and issued to the plaintiff. PW-4 has also re-affirmed that the document i.e. sanad Ex. PW3/1 was issued from their office. PW-4 during the cross-examination denied any personal knowledge with regard to the khasra no.44/26, Village Haibatpura, Najafgarh, Delhi. It is admitted by the PW-4 that the area of the khasra no.44/26 is 8 bigha 14 biswa. He also deposed that he has no knowledge whether the suit property falling in khasra no.44/26, Village Haibatpur was the gaon sabha land and the same was placed at the disposal of DDA. He also denied the suggestion that it is not an avacuee property.
27.16 The defendant/DDA on the other hand examined Sh. Brij Lal, Deputy Director, Horticulture Department, DDA as DW1 who has deposed that the plaintiff has encroached the land falling in khasra no.44/26 which is a 31/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
government land under the disposal of DDA. That after urbanization of Village Haibatpur, the land situated in khasra no.44/26 was placed at the disposal of DDA vide notification no.SO 2190 dated 20.08.1974 Ex. DW1/4. During the cross-examination this witness DW1 was confronted with the khasra girdawari for the year 2000-2001 and 2001-02 wherein the said land was still shown as Gaon Sabha Land, despite his claim the same was placed with the DDA for disposal in the year 1974.
27.17 The defendant/DDA has also examined Sh. Baljeet Rathi, Kanungo, DDA as DW-2 who deposed on the same lines as deposed by DW1 Sh.Brij Lal. It is admitted by the DW-2 that the demarcation dated 12.01.2012 was not carried out by the order of this court. It is also admitted by this witness that the Mandir and Samadhi lie in khasra no.44/26.
27.18 The perusal of the record reveals that on the one hand the plaintiffs have claimed the ownership over the land situated in khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa) on the basis of it being allotted by the Custodian Department, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi vide allotment letter/certificate Ex. PW3/1. This allotment letter/certificate is proved by the plaintiff by examining PW-4 Sh. Nagender Shah, UDC from Land and Building Department, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. The plaintiff has further relied upon the letter dated 19.08.1948 Ex. PW3/2, certified copy of the order dated 30.12.1998 passed by Managing Officer, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi Ex. PW3/3. This document is also proved by PW-4 Sh. Nagender Shah.
32/37RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
27.19 On the other hand the defendant/DDA in its pleadings and evidence has also claimed that the plaintiff has encroached upon the land in khasra no.44/26. The witnesses brought on record by the defendant/DDA also deposed that the plaintiff has encroached upon the land in khasra no.44/26. The submissions of the defendant in the written statement and the deposition of its witnesses itself supports the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession of the land situated in khasra no.44/26. The plaintiff by way of documents i.e. Sanad Ex. PW3/1, letter dated 19.08.1948 Ex. PW3/2, certified copy of the order dated 30.12.1998 passed by Managing Officer, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi Ex. PW3/3 and also by virtue of the pleadings and deposition of witnesses is able to prove the allotment of land situated in khasra no.44/26 by the Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi and its possession over the same.
27.20 On the other hand the defendant/DDA has claimed ownership of the suit property by relying upon the notification no. SO 2190 dated 20.08.1974 Ex. DW1/4 and the revenue entries contained in the khasra girdawari whereby the land situated in khasra no.44/26 is stated to be gaon sabha land and was put at the disposal of DDA by notification. It is required to be examined as to whose claim regarding the ownership of the land situated in khasra no.44/26 is sustainable. The defendant has claimed the ownership of the land situated in khasra no.44/26 by virtue of revenue entries in the name of Gaon Sabha.
27.21 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in case P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 INSC 1009 has reiterated the principle that the revenue records are not documents of title. It was further held that the mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any 33/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
presumptive value on title. All it does, is entitles the person in whose favour mutation is done, to pay the land revenue in question. It was further held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. It was also reiterated that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary.
27.22 In the present case the defendant/DDA has not brought on record any other document except the revenue entries mentioned in khasra girdawari, to prove its ownership over the land situated in khasra no.44/26. Whereas the plaintiff has been able to prove his ownership by virtue of allotment letter dated 19.08.1948 Ex. PW3/2, certified copy of the order dated 30.12.1998 passed by Managing Officer, Department of Evacuee Property, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi Ex. PW3/3 and Sanad Ex. PW3/1. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is able to prove his ownership over the land situated in khasra no.44/26(8-14), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi being allotted by Land and Building Department, Department of Evacuee Property, Delhi. Accordingly the plaintiff is held entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for. This issue no.7 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/DDA.
27.23 The plaintiff is held entitled for the relief of declaration with regard to the land situated in khasra no.44/26(8-14), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Therefore, the plaintiff is also held entitled for the relief of permanent injunction with regard to the land situated in khasra no. 44/26(8-14), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Issues no.5 & 7 are accordingly decided in 34/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
favour of plaintiff and against the defendant/DDA and the findings of Ld. Trial Court are accordingly modified.
ISSUE NO.8 "8. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this case? OPP"
28.1 The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of injunction and declaration with regard to the land situated in khasra no.44/1 and 44/26. In the written statement it is contended by defendant/DDA that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Before proceeding further it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provision of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, which reads as under:-
"185. Cognizance of suits, etc, under this Act. (1)Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof. (2)Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie form an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid.
(3)An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a court mentioned in column 3 to the court or authority mentioned in column 8 thereof. (4)A second appeal shall lie from the final order passed in an appeal under sub section (3) to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 9 of the Schedule aforesaid.."
28.2 It is true that the bar created by Delhi Land Reforms Act is applicable with regard to the agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of a village. However it is not in dispute that after urbanization of the area, the Delhi Land Reforms Act shall cease to apply as land is no longer considered as rural. The urbanization of the land is being done by the notification issued by Municipal Corporation or by the Delhi Development Authority(DDA). The use 35/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
of the land and its development after urbanization shall not be governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
28.3 The defendant/DDA in its written statement has specifically mentioned that on the urbanization of the village, the land was placed on disposal of DDA vide notification SO No. 2190 dated 20.08.1974. In the amended written statement also the same plea was raised by the defendant/DDA. Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act laid down that the fact admitted need not to be proved. It specifies that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing. In the present case it is an admitted case of the defendant/DDA that the land under dispute has already been urbanized vide notification SO no.2190 dated 20.08.1974. Therefore, the Delhi Land Reforms Act has ceased to apply. In support of my observation, I have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Mohinder Singh (dead) Through Legal Representatives and Another Vs. Narain Singh and others, (2023) 19 SCC 535, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Once there is a notification issued by the competent authority in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the 1957 Act which is a special provision in reference to rural areas, such of the rural areas cease to be included therein upon issuance of the notification and shall thereafter include in and form part of the urban areas in terms of the notification.(Para 31) After harmonising the provisions of the 1954 Act and the 1957 Act, it can be held that once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the 1957 Act, the provisions of the 1954 Act cease to apply. In sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the 1954 Act become non est and loses its legal significance"
28.4. In view of above, it is held that the civil courts are having the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Accordingly the issue no.8 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant/DDA.
ISSUE NO.6 (RELIEF) 36/37 RCA Civil DJ ADJ No. 54769/16 & 54707/16 Hem Chander Vs. DDA & DDA Vs. Hem Chander & Ors.
29. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings on issue no.1 to 5 and 7& 8, the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 passed by Ld. Trial Court in case no.1006/06 titled as Hem Chander & Ors Vs. DDA is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:-
a) The plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration declaring that the land situated in khasra no.44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi is owned by the plaintiff being allotted from Custodian Department.
b) The plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction. The defendant/DDA, its agents, employees, officers, contractors and labourers etc. are restrained from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession, occupation and use of the plaintiff over the land in khasra no.44/1(0.18 biswa) and 44/26(8 bigha 14 biswa), Village Haibatpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi and also from demolishing the 'Shiv temple' and 'Samadhi' constructed by the plaintiff in the land in khasra no.44/1, without due process of law.
c) The plaintiff is also held entitled for the cost of the suit.
30. Both the appeals bearing no. 54769/16 titled as Hem Chander & Ors. VS. DDA and appeal no.54707/16 titled as DDA Vs. Hem Chander are accordingly disposed off in aforesaid terms. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Copy of judgment be placed in both files.
31. Trial court record be sent back alongwith an attested copy of this judgment. Appeal files be consigned to record room on completion of necessary formalities.
Announced in the open
court on dated 27.09.2025 DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
Digitally signed District Judge-01
South West, Dwarka Courts
by DEVENDER
DEVENDER KUMAR
KUMAR JANGALA
JANGALA Date:
2025.10.06
16:32:08 +0530
37/37