Delhi District Court
Sh. Phool Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 August, 2011
Suit No. 111/2001
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA
CIVIL JUDGE (WEST): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
SUIT NO. 111/2001
SH. PHOOL SINGH
S/O LATE SH. LAKHMI CHAND,
R/O H. NO. 16/58E, BAPA NAGAR,
TANK ROAD, ANANDPURI, KAROL BAGH,
NEW DELHI110005.
.......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN
VIKAS SADAN, I.N.A.
NEW DELHI.
........DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 26.03.2001
DATE OF RESERVATION : 01.08.2011
DATE OF DECISION : 09.08.2011
JUDGMENT: This is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The facts, in brief, are as follows:
1. That the plaintiff is the owner of the premises and is residing at the abovesaid address which is built up on a plot of land forming part of khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khawat No. 24 in village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi. The premises is about 9 biswas and the plaintiff is in possession of the same for the last 45 years. The property has been demarcated by the Naib Tehsildar and Patwari, Delhi. That in the year 1996, the officials of the police inconnivance with the officials of MCD and some bad elements of the locality broken the wall of the plaintiff's premises and took away the Malba Phool Singh Vs. DDA 1/16 Suit No. 111/2001 from the premises of the plaintiff with the purpose to construct a Pucca road on the land of the plaintiff. That, however, till date the plaintiff is trying hard to construct the wall of the premises but the officials of the police, MCD and DDA create obstructions in the way of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the police and the court of Sh. D. K. Malhotra, the then Sr. Civil Judge, Delhi vide order dated 28.08.1999 restrained the police and the officials of the MCD from interfering in the construction of the Wall which was broken by the antisocial elements inconnivance with the local police and the officials of the MCD. That the said court restrained the police and MCD as has been stated above, the defendant crops up to threaten the plaintiff through its officials, to demolish the structure of the plaintiff consisting of a temple, two storeyed building and single storey behind the temple. That on 19.02.2001, the officials of the defendant came to the premises of the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff to demolish the structure of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff tried to reconstruct the wall of his premises. But they left by the intervention of the people of the locality. That again on 23.03.2001 at about 11:30 AM the officials of the defendant Sh. Brijesh Kumar came to the premises of the plaintiff and demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/ as illegal gratification if the plaintiff wanted to save the structure in the suit premises otherwise the officials of DDA/ defendant would demolish the structure therein the premises of the plaintiff if he tried to construct the wall. The plaintiff went to the police station, Parsad Nagar to lodge the report against the said official and filed a written complaint in the name of the SHO Parsad Nagar, New Delhi. The aforesaid factual matrix gave the plaintiff the cause of action to file the present suit seeking the relief that defendant be restrained from forcibly Phool Singh Vs. DDA 2/16 Suit No. 111/2001 demolishing the structure of the plaintiff in the premises bearing no. 16/58E, Bappa Nagar, Tank Road, Anand Puri, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 forming a part of khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 of village Sidhora Khurd, measuring about 9 biswas.
2. In their written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, the preliminary objections i.e. that the suit is bad for want of 53B of DD Act and that the suit had not been valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, had been taken. Further, in reply on merits, it is denied that disputed land forms part of khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2, khawat no. 24 in village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi. In fact same falls in khasra no. 723/662 min village Khampur Raya. This khasra no. 723/665 min was acquired vide award no. 1745. After its acquisition the vacant possession was taken over on 25.11.1968. This land is under the jurisdiction of defendant. That the plaintiff had also filed two suits bearing no. 418/89 and 581/86 in respect of the same property. These suits were consolidated vide orders dated 21.02.1975 treating the suit no. 481/89 as main suit. Sh. V. K. Goel, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi had dismissed these suits vide judgment order dated 07.07.1999. The plaintiff had failed to establish that disputed land falls in khasra no. 422/662/364 min 2 khawat no. 24 village Sadhora Khurd, Delhi. Rest of the averments made in the plaint are categorically denied.
3. The plaintiff filed his replication to the written statement of defendant wherein the plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint and contested the averments made by the defendant in his written statement.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 10.05.2002: Phool Singh Vs. DDA 3/16 Suit No. 111/2001
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 11 CPC i.e. under the principles of resjudicata?
2. Whether the suit is bad for want of Section 53B of DD Act? OPD
3. Whether plaintiff is owner in premises in dispute measuring 9 biswa falling in khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 in village Sadhora Khurd, Delhi? OPD.
4. Whether the disputed land falls in Khasra No.723/665 min of Village Khampur Raya which stands acquired and placed at the disposal of DDA? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.
6. Relief.
5. The very first issue related to the Section 11 CPC was treated as preliminary issue and my Ld. Predecessor disposed of the entire suit on the said issue itself without parties have led any evidence, holding thereby that the present suit was barred under Section 11 CPC in view of the principles of resjudicata and as regards to the remaining issues, it was observed that same were already decided vide judgment dated 07.07.1999.
6. Thereafter matter went in appeal and the present case has been finally remanded back to this court vide orders dated 21.02.2011 from the Hon'ble High Court with the observations that main dispute is whether the property falls in khasra no. 1422/662/364 of village Sidhora Khurd as stated by plaintiff or as is contended by DDA that it falls in khasra no. 723/665 of village Kham Pur. That matter has been remanded back with the direction to give issuewise findings on all the issues. The relevant para of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 21.04.2011 is reproduced herein for the sake of ready reference: "...matter be remanded back to the Trial Judge to decide on the merits the controversy and give issue wise findings on all the issues...."
Phool Singh Vs. DDA 4/16 Suit No. 111/2001
7. The matter was taken up by this court on 25.03.2011 wherein vide a separate statement, the plaintiff stated that he does not wish to lead any further evidence and evidence lead in the case bearing no. 24/06 titled as Phool Singh vs. DDA filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant/ DDA, which was pending in this court, be treated as evidence in the present case as well. Thereafter plaintiff was cross examined by Ld. counsel for DDA. On 06.07.2011, defendant's evidence was closed vide the separate statement of Ld. counsel for DDA to the effect that they did not wish to lead any further defendant's evidence apart from the evidence already led in the aforesaid case bearing no. 24/2006 titled as Phool Singh vs. DDA.
8. In the said case, the evidence adduced by both the parties as follows: In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined four witnesses. The plaintiff himself entered into the witness box as PW1 and filed his affidavit which is Ex.P1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint. He relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/15. Ex. PW1/1 is the site plan, Ex. PW1/2 is the copy of jamabandi, Ex. PW1/3 is the copy of khasra girdawari for the year 197677 and 197980, Ex. PW1/4 is the copy of khasra girdawari for the year 198889 to kharif 1991, Ex. PW1/5 is the copy of aks sizra of the suit land, Ex. PW1/6 is the judgment dated 07.07.1999, Ex. PW1/7 is the certified copy of demarcation report, Ex. PW1/8 is the certified copy of judgment bearing suit no. 111/01 passed by the court of Ms. Madhu Jain, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Ex. PW1/9 is the receipt of the property tax dated 05.01.2000, Ex. PW1/10 is the property tax bill 200203 in respect of the suit property, Ex. PW1/11 is the assessment order of the year 200203 issued by Asstt. Assessor & Collector, Karol Phool Singh Vs. DDA 5/16 Suit No. 111/2001 Bagh Zone, Ex. PW1/12 is the copy of legal notice dated 25.10.2002, Ex. PW1/13 is the postal receipt, Ex. PW1/14 is the certificate of posting and Ex. PW1/15 is the acknowledgment of the notice.
PW2 Sh. Bhim Sen vide his Ex. PW2/A and PW3 Sh. Chunni Lal vide his Ex. PW3/A deposed in favour of the Plaintiff who are the neighbours of the Plaintiff.
PW4 Sh. Karan Singh, was the Halka Patwari of Village Sidora Khurd, who had brought the summoned record i.e. Jamabandi and Khasra Girdwari of the Village Sidora Khurd of the year 198283 which showed the name of Sh. Phool Singh, the Plaintiff herein in the land measuring 9 Biswas. He had also brought the Khasra Girdwari for the year 197677 to 197980.
9. In order to prove their case, Defendant/ DDA examined only one witness. DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Patwari, West Zone, DDA who vide his testimony Ex. DW1/A reiterated the contents in the Written Statement and relied upon document Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/5. Ex. DW1/1 is the award bearing no. 1745, Ex. DW1/2 is the kabza Karwai, Ex. DW1/3 is the notification no. F10(7)/80L&B dated 09.02.1981, Ex. DW1/4 is the Aks sajara dated 30.04.1987 and Ex. DW1/5 is the location plan of Mauza Khampur Raya khasra no. 723/665 min.
10.I have heard both the counsels of respective parties and carefully perused the material available on record.
11.My issuewise findings are as follows: Issue No. 2: Whether the suit is bad for want of Section 53B of DD Act? OPD Phool Singh Vs. DDA 6/16 Suit No. 111/2001 The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant/ DDA. However, no substantial evidence has been led on behalf of defendant to show that suit is bad for want of notice under Section 53B of DD Act. After analysis of provision of Section 53B, it is clear as per clause (3) of the section that in a case of injunction, the mandate of statutory notice is not applicable. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 3: Whether plaintiff is owner in premises in dispute measuring 9 biswa falling in khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 in village Sadhora Khurd, Delhi? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined four witnesses. PW1 is the plaintiff himself who vide his testimony Ex.P1 has testified that the Plaintiff was in possession since the time of his forefathers of property bearing no.16/58E, Bapa Nagar, Tank Road, Anand Puri, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 constructed upon a piece of land comprising Khasra No.1422/662/364/2 min, measuring 9 Biswas (450 sq. Yards) situated in Village Sidora Khurd, Delhi. That the suit property consist of one house constructed on 250 sq. Yards and the remaining land measuring 200 sq. Yards consist of a built up temple. That possession of the Plaintiff has been duly recorded in Khasra Girdawari as well as jamabandi of Village Sidora Khurd maintained by the Revenue authorities. The plaintiff has proved vide Ex.PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4 which are the copies of jamabandi and khasra girdawaris pertaining to the year 196667 and 198889 to show his continuous possession over the suit land bearing khasra no.1422/662/364/2 min village Sidhora Khurd. PW4 has proved the khasra girdawari/ jamabandi pertaining to khasra Phool Singh Vs. DDA 7/16 Suit No. 111/2001 no.1422/662/364/2 for the year 198283 and 197677. Khasra Girdawari is the record of cultivation which is also an important document showing possession of a person over the land. However, it does not show the title of the person in the property. Moreover, as regards Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3 which are the copies of jamabandies and khasra girdawaris, the concerned patwari who is purported to have prepared the said khasra girdawari after comparing the same from the original record, has not been produced in the witness box. Even the witness PW4 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that the Jamabandi for the year 198283 does not disclose the name of Phool Singh in column no. 4 i.e. as the bhoomidhar or the owner. By merely looking at the khasra girdawari placed on record the most that can be inferred is that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property but it cannot be said that he is the owner thereof.
The plaintiff has heavily relied upon the demarcation report of the suit property which is Ex. PW1/7. According to the said report, one Naib Tehsildar was appointed as Local Commissioner and he visited the suit property but since the demarcation was not completed, he once again visited the suit property on 22.05.1992 and 30.06.1992. It is stated that none was present on behalf of DDA despite service. It is further observed that from a point he saw the house and temple of the plaintiff which was at a distance of 3 gattha but the same could not be measured since there were number of big houses in between and the Ld. Local commissioner presumed that the temple and the house of the plaintiff falls in khasra no. 1422/662/264 village Sidhora Pur.
However, Ld. Local Commissioner has not prepared any site plan to show the actual position of the suit property and the adjoining area. He has furnished his report on the basis of his own presumption. A demarcation cannot be done on the basis of Phool Singh Vs. DDA 8/16 Suit No. 111/2001 presumption and probabilities. There is a well defined manner in which it is to be carried out. There is a vague statement made in the report that none has appeared on behalf of defendant/ DDA despite service. It has not been mentioned as to what steps had been taken to serve the said department. Even the notices purported to have been sent, have not been placed on record. Further even the "three fixed permanent points formula" for carrying out the demarcation has not been considered. Even the said local commissioner has not entered the witness box to testify about the same. In view of these observations, I am constrained to state that the said demarcation has not been carried out in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the rules and regulations, the report is merely presumptive in nature and therefore the same cannot be relied in evidence.
In the crossexamination of PW2, who is the neighbour of the plaintiff, he has categorically admitted that he does not know in which number the property of the plaintiff falls therefore his testimony cannot be relied upon. Further PW3 has stated in his crossexamination that his property falls in khasra no. 1422/662/364 of village Khampur Khurd. Whereas it is the case of the plaintiff that property falls in the village Sindhora Khurd. Neither PW2 nor PW3 have been able to support the case of the plaintiff in this regard. As such the khasra number of an immovable property can be proved by way of documentary evidence or a designated person dealing in the affairs of property viz. the Patwari or a tehsildar and mere bald assertions cannot suffice.
Thus in view of the appraisal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff has not been able to show that he is the owner of the suit property or that it falls in khasra no. 1422/662/364/2 min village Sidhora Khurd and therefore, he cannot be granted the relief as prayed for. Phool Singh Vs. DDA 9/16 Suit No. 111/2001
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 4: Whether the disputed land falls in Khasra No.723/665 min of Village Khampur Raya which stands acquired and placed at the disposal of DDA? OPD The onus to prove issue no. 4 was upon the defendant.
The defendant adduced testimony of DW1 Sh. Ashok Kumar, Patwari, West Zone, DDA who vide his testimony Ex. DW1/A reiterated the contents in the Written Statement and relied upon document Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/5. The documents Ex. DW1/1 the award bearing no. 1745, Ex. DW1/2 the kabza Karwai and Ex. DW1/3 the notification no. F10(7)/80L&B dated 09.02.1981 merely reveal that khasra no. 723/665 village Khampur Raya had been acquired and placed at the disposal of DDA. The said document do not reveal the exact location of the suit property. Ex. DW1/4 is the aks sijra, however, the person who had prepared the said aks sijra had not been produced in the witness box. Ex. DW1/5 is a rough site plan and does not support the case of the defendant/ DDA to its hilt. Accordingly, even defendant/ DDA has failed to show that the suit property falls in khasra no. 723/665 of village Khampur Raya.
Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant. Issue no. 1: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 11 CPC i.e. under the principles of resjudicata? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant/ DDA.
At this stage, it is imperative to analyze the provisions of Section 11 CPC. Section 11 of CPC states that "no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter Phool Singh Vs. DDA 10/16 Suit No. 111/2001 directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court."
It is held in the case of Escrots Farms Ltd. v. Commr., Kumanon Division, Nainital, AIR 2004 SC 2186 (2002), that res judicata is a plea available in civil proceedings in accordance with Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a doctrine applied to give finality to 'lis' in original or appellate proceedings. the doctrine in substance means that an issue or a point decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be reopened and reagitated twice over.
It is further held in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jian v. Archna Kumar, 2005 AIR SCW 270 that the principles of res judicata is founded on public policy that the parties cannot be permitted to have controversy directly or substantially in issue between the same parties or those claiming under the parties in the subsequent suit cannot be raised once over.
Thus from the bare reading of this section, it is clear that no court shall try a suit in which the matter is directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them are litigating under the same title. In the present case, the plaintiff himself has stated in the plaint that previously also he filed a suit against the DDA. The plaintiff has also filed the copy of that judgment dated 07.07.1999 delivered by Sh. V. K. Goyal the then Ld. Civil Judge on the record. I have carefully perused the said judgment. That suit was also between the Phool Singh Vs. DDA 11/16 Suit No. 111/2001 plaintiff and DDA alongwith other defendants and in that suit also plaintiff had claimed that he is residing at house no. 16/58E, Bapa Nagar, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi forming part of khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 of village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi. In the present case, the plaintiff also has claimed that property falls in khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 of village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi. DDA has taken the plea that suit land falls in khasra no. 723/665 min of village Khampur Raya which stands acquired and possession has been taken over by the DDA and placed at the disposal of DDA. In the previously instituted suit also the DDA has taken the same plea and the matter whether the suit property property forms part of khasra no. 723/665 as pleaded by the DDA or whether the same falls in khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 was directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit which has been decided on merits by my Ld. Predecessor on 07.07.1999 however, no conclusive finding was given on the said issue. Admittedly, the said judgment has attained a finality as neither of the parties had admittedly filed any appeal against the said judgment and decree. Thereafter the present case was remanded back to this court vide orders dated 21.02.2011 from the Hon'ble High Court with the observations that main dispute is whether the property falls in khasra no. 1422/662/364 of village Sidhora Khurd as stated by plaintiff or as is contended by DDA that it falls in khasra no. 723/665 of village Kham Pur. That matter has been remanded back with the direction to give issuewise findings on all the issues.
I have carefully gone through the said judgment dated 07.07.1999. In the said case, the plea taken by the plaintiff was that on 17.11.1986, the plaintiff lodged a report with the PS Karol Bagh stating that the officials of defendant no. 1/ DDA had Phool Singh Vs. DDA 12/16 Suit No. 111/2001 come to demolish the temple and threatened the plaintiff. That again on 06.09.1989, officials of the defendant came to demolish the temple as well as room, bathroom etc. in the possession of the plaintiff. It is prayed that defendant be restrained from demolishing the Mandir and premises bearing no. 16/58E, Bapa Nagar, Tank Road, New Delhi forming part of khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24, village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi.
The said suit was dismissed however, no conclusive findings were given to the fact that whether the suit property lies in khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 of village Sidhora Khurd as alleged by the plaintiff or in khasra no. 723/665 of village Kham Pur Raya as alleged by the defendant/ DDA. In the present case, it has been alleged by the plaintiff that on 19.02.2001, the officials of the defendant came to the premises of the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff to demolish the structure of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff tried to reconstruct the wall of his premises. But they left by the intervention of the people of the locality. That again on 23.03.2001 at about 11:30 AM the officials of the defendant Sh. Brijesh Kumar came to the premises of the plaintiff and demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/ as illegal gratification if the plaintiff wanted to save the structure in the suit premises otherwise the officials of DDA/ defendant would demolish the structure therein the premises of the plaintiff if he tried to construct the wall. The plaintiff went to the police station, Parsad Nagar to lodge the report against the said official and filed a written complaint in the name of the SHO Parsad Nagar, New Delhi. The aforesaid factual matrix gave the plaintiff the cause of action to file the present suit seeking the relief that defendant be restrained from forcibly demolishing the structure of the plaintiff in the premises bearing no. 16/58E, Bappa Nagar, Tank Road, Anand Puri, Phool Singh Vs. DDA 13/16 Suit No. 111/2001 Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 forming a part of khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 of village Sidhora Khurd, measuring about 9 biswas.
Although the relief sought in both the cases was the same however, it is pertinent to mention that the date of cause of action in both the suit was different viz. in the earlier suit, it was in the year 1986 and in the present suit it was on 19.02.2001 and again on 23.03.2001 as alleged by the plaintiff. Thus fresh cause of action had arisen upon the plaintiff in the year 2001 which led the plaintiff to file the present suit of injunction. In such an eventuality, this court is constrained to hold that the principles of resjudicata do not squarally apply in the present case since the causes of action are different although pertaining to the same property.
Moreover, in the present case, as is already discussed, although the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership, however, his possession over the suit property is not disputed.
Even DW1, in his crossexamination, has categorically admitted that it is correct that there is a mandir, a building consisting of three rooms at the suit property. It is further admitted that there is a rasta on the North side of the suit property and that the plaintiff has encroached upon the land in the year 1982 by construction a room and a mandir and thereafter extended the area.
Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the plaintiff is an encroacher upon the Government land, it is a settled law that a trespasser cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. For this, reliance is placed on the preposition of law laid down in "M.C. Chockalingam vs. Manick A. Vasagam", 1974(1) SCC 48, the court held that: Phool Singh Vs. DDA 14/16 Suit No. 111/2001 "law forbids forcible dispossession, even with the best of title".
Similarly, in "Krishna ram vs. Shobha Venkat Rao", 1984 (4) SCC 131, it was held that: "Where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law".
Analogous view was propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in "Nagar Palika Jind vs. Jagat Singh", 1995(3) SCC 426, and "Ramesh Chand vs. Anil Panjwani", 2003 (7)SCC 350.
In "Ramegowda vs. M. Varadappa Naidu", 2004 (1) SCC 769, the speaking for the three Judges' bench their Lordship, R.C. Lahoti J. (as he then was) succinctly laid down as herein after reproduced: "8........ It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a tresspasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without use of unreasonable force. It if the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner. In the absence of proof of better Phool Singh Vs. DDA 15/16 Suit No. 111/2001 title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title.
Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
As is already discussed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that suit property lies in khasra no. 1422/662/364 min 2 khewat no. 24 of village Sidhora Khurd as well as defendant failed to prove suit property lies in khasra no. 423/665 of village Khampur Raya. Yet the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is not disputed. Hence, in view of findings in the foregoing issues, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff only to the extent that the structure on the premises shall not be demolished by the defendant/ DDA without due process of law.
Relief In view of the aforesaid discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed only to the extent that the structure on the premises shall not be demolished by the defendant/ DDA without due process of law. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Pronounced in the open court today on 09.08.2011.
(SHEFALI SHARMA) CIVIL JUDGE (WEST) THC, DELHI/ 09.08.2011 Phool Singh Vs. DDA 16/16