Delhi District Court
The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti vs Dda on 16 December, 2024
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF MS. DISHA SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE-02
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO.607014/2016
CNR No. DLWT03-000009-1992
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:-
Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti
Office at:- 745, Ward No.6, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030
..........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority
(through its Vice Chairman)
New Delhi.
.....................DEFENDANT
Suit filed on :- 21.05.1992
Judgment Reserved on :- 09.12.2024
Date of decision :- 16.12.2024
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate a suit for Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-1/42
- 2 -
declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is necessary to state the pleadings in the present suit concisely.
Pleadings of the plaintiff: -
1. This is a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant whereby plaintiff has sought decree of declaration thereby declaring the plaintiff members as owners of the land, occupied by them as situated in Khasra no.1659, total measuring 27 bighas and some odd biswas alongwith a decree of injunction thereby restraining the defendant, its agents, employees or anyone acting on its behalf from demolishing the houses or interfering in any manner in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the land by the members of the Samiti.
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a Samiti registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its registered office at Ward no.6, House no.745, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030. That this Samiti had been performed by the peer Harijans and backwards of Village Mehrauli. That the members of the Samiti are the native residents of Village Mehrauli and even their forefathers were also native resident of Village Mehrauli.
3. It has been further averred that it was a fact known to the public at large that the poor harijan and backwards have Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-2/42
- 3 -
always been subjected to the victimization and harassment. That just to protect their rights it was thought fit and necessary that a Samiti be formed so that the rights of the poor harijans and backwards may be protected. That, the samiti was formed in the year 1968 and since then it is looking after the interest and welfare of the village Mehrauli.
4. It has been further averred that there is a land situated in Khasra no.1659, which is shown in the name of the Gaon Sabha, however, since long time the said land is being used for the purpose of inhabitance mainly by the members of the samiti and also for the purpose of burying the child (Bacha Garhan). That in the revenue records, the land has been shown as having the ghar mumkin abadi (inhabitance) by the people.
5. It has been further averred that it is worthy to point out that the area of Village Mehrauli is being surrounded by rocks and the land has been rocky and the land in question used to be initially as banjar kadim i.e. waste land as in the revenue records. It is a fact that the land of the Gaon Sabha belongs to the residents of Village and since the members of the samiti are the native residents of Village and hence the land belongs to them also.
6. It has been further averred that since the harijans of the village were having the houses towards a particular land which falls towards the land; and hence they raised house Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-3/42
- 4 -
in this area. That houses have been constructed long back, even prior to their becoming the members of the samiti. That in some cases they were constructed by the forefathers. That prior to the construction of the houses, the land was used for the purpose of Gher Gitwar i.e., for tethering the cattle and storing the cow dung cakes etc.
7. It has been further averred that Sh. Puran Chand Bodh is the president of the samiti and is competent to file the present suit on behalf of the samiti and hence, the present suit has been filed by him on behalf of samiti. It has been further averred that the DDA is known for harassing and victimizing the poor as the poor cannot afford to palm their grievance. That big kothis have been constructed around the land in question but nothing of any sort has been done to them as some of the kothis belong to the officers of the DDA and some of them belongs to other officers of other authorities. That it is also to point out that since the members of the Samiti are the native resident of village and are having every right over the land. That they have every right to protect the same from being illegally interfered by anybody or to protect the same from any harm or loss caused to the land. That the DDA demolished the Ambedkar Bhawan which was being looked after by the samiti. That a question was raised in the Parliament about this illegal action on the part of the DDA officers and a direction was passed by the Hon'ble Speaker to put the actual facts on the record.
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-4/42
- 5 -
8. It has been further averred that the DDA officers encouraged by the facts of said demolition on 30.04.1992 came with its ammunition, equipment, laborers and with bulldozers to demolish the houses of the members of the samiti but due to resistance, they could not succeed and sensing the situation the officers of DDA left the spot saying that they will come again and demolish the houses.
9. It has been further averred that DDA has no right to demolish the houses, even otherwise the law has to be followed on its own cost, which the DDA officers are not following. That it will be relevant to point out that DDA can only claim with regard to the land which has been acquired and which has been put at its disposal after acquisition, however, in the present case the land has not been acquired nor any proceedings for acquisition have been taken nor any notice has been given till date for acquisition of land. That the factum that the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha is clear from the revenue records.
10.It has been further averred that the plaintiff samiti is entitled for the declaration that the plaintiff's members are the owner of the land in question and no other person has any concern or any right to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land by the plaintiff's members. That, the suit has been filed by the samiti on behalf of the members in the representative capacity of the members and the suit if for and on behalf of the members of the samiti and the samiti by the Constitution is entitled to file the suit on Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-5/42
- 6 -
behalf of the members of the samiti.
Pleadings of the Defendants: -
11.The written statement was filed on behalf of defendant/ DDA wherein inter alia, it was submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the plaintiff has not impleaded the Revenue Authorities; that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; that the plaintiff has not supplied the defendant with any copy of the site plan, hence without having a copy thereof, the present WS cannot be properly ans fully completed; and that the plaintiff has not served the notice U/s 53 B of DD Act, 1957 which is mandatory. It has been further submitted in the WS that the said subject land i.e. Khasra no.1659 of Village Mehrauli is Gaon Sabha land, however, it is denied that this land is being used to in-habitation by the members of the plaintiff or for burying children. It is further submitted that vide notification no.SO.2190 dated 10.08.1974 published by the Govt. of India under the signatures of the Jt. Secretary to the Govt. of India, in Part II, Section 3, Sub Section (ii) of the Gazette of India on 20.08.1974, the subject land being part of Village Mehrauli had been vested in and placed at the disposal of the DDA for the purpose of maintenance and disposal thereof as green land. As such, no individuals or any samiti can claim any right, title and/or interest over Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-6/42
- 7 -
the suit land. That this land is at present under the watch and ward of the Horticultural Department of DDA. That it is also not understood as to where the members of the samiti are stated to have build their houses. It has been further submitted that no demolition action was fixed for 30.04.1992 as per official record.
Issues :-
12.From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in the suit vide order dated 16.09.2005: -
1). Whether the suit is barred for non-service of notice U/s 53 B, DD Act? OPD
2). Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
3). Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
4). Whether the suit land is a Gaon Sabha land, placed at the disposal of DDA by notification of Government of India? If so, its effect? OPD
5). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed? OPP
6). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed?
7). Relief.
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-7/42
- 8 -
Evidence :-
13. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff got examined witnesses i.e. Sh. Puran Chand Bodh as PW-1 (since deceased, evidence not to be read in evidence being incomplete), Sh. Phool Singh as PW-2, Sh. Tek Chand also as PW-2, Sh. Akhey Singh as PW-3 (evidence not to be read being incomplete), Sh. Jagdish Bharti also as PW-3, Sh. Khem Chand Sharma as PW-4, Sh. Yogesh Kumar also as PW-4, Sh. Ashok as PW-5, Sh. Bijender Singh as PW-6, Sh. Rekha Harjai as PW-7, Sh. Rattan Pal Singh as PW-8 and Sh. Praveen Kumar as PW-9.
a).PW-2 Sh. Phool Singh deposed that he is the member of plaintiff society and well conversant with the fact. That the members of the Society are having its office in Khasra no.1659 (new Khasra number is 1115) situated in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli, New Delhi and members are in possession of this land since long about 100 years. That earlier the part of the land was being used for gher gitwar and part of land was used for burying the children and part of the land is being occupied by the members of the society having houses thereon. That the land is shown in the site plan Ex.PW1/4 and has been prepared at the instance of members of the society. That the society had passed resolution Ex.PW1/1, whereby PW-1 was authorized to file the suit, copy of the members of the society is Ex. PW1/3 which is also correct. That the society is also registered under the Societies Registration Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-8/42
- 9 -
Act. That DDA has not issued any notice to them till date, nor land is acquired, nor any notification has been issued by the Govt. of India. That land is unacquired one and as such there is no question of payment of compensation to the members. That since in the records land has been shown in the name of Gaon Sabha and plaintiff members being the members of Gaon Sabha are entitled to retain the possession and protect the possession. That no other person except the plaintiff society has any right or concern over the land in dispute. That on 30.04.1992, the Officers of DDA threatened to demolish the houses of plaintiff members and they also demolished adjoining portion of Ambedkar Bhawan and there was resistance by the members of the society and DDA officers, were and they threatened to demolish the suit land. That then the present suit was filed for seeking indulgence of this Court. That in the records of revenue authorities also, houses have been shown and entire Khasra no.1659 has been shown to be built up one.
b). PW-2 Sh. Tek Chand led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-2/A, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. PW-2 also relied upon certain documents which were already exhibited and marked in the evidence of PW-1 Sh. Puran Chand Bodh (since expired, whose evidence could not be read in evidence) as under: -
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-9/42
- 10 -
Identification Mark Description
Ex. PW-1/1 Resolution.
Ex. PW-1/2 Copy of the registration certificate.
Ex. PW-1/3 Copy of the list of members of the
society.
Ex. PW-1/4 Copy of the site plan.
PW-2 Sh. Tek Chand was cross-examined at length by Ld. SLO for defendant/DDA.
c). PW-3 Sh. Jagdish Bharti led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-3/A, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint. PW-3 relied upon the documents which are mentioned in his affidavit. PW-3 also relied upon certain documents which are exhibited/marked as under: -
Identification Description
Mark
Ex. PW-3/1A Resolution dated 25.08.2017.
Ex. PW-3/1 Copy of earlier resolution dated
30.04.1992.
Ex. PW-3/2 Copy of registration certificate of
plaintiff society.
Ex. PW-3/3 Site plan.
Ex. PW-3/4 Copy of members of samiti.
Ex. PW-3/5 Copy of Khasra Girdawari since 1982
onwards.
Mark-X2 Copy of newspaper dated 21.04.1992.
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-10/42
- 11 -
Ex. PW-3/7 Copy of settlement report of collector of year 1908 in Urdu along with its English and Hindi translation.
Mark-X1 Copy of denotification issued by DDA. Ex. PW-3/9 Copy of judgment and decree dated 21.02.1986 passed by Hon'ble ADJ Sh.
J.D. Kapoor.
Mark-X3 Copy of order dated 09.04.1973. Mark-X4 Copy of order passed by SDM/RA Sh.
A.K. Guha.
Mark-X5 Copy of ikrarnama in Urdu along with its Hindi translation of the year 1953.
Ex. PW-3/13 Copy of Wajib-ul-Arz (settlement report of collector) of the year 1880 with its translation.
Mark-X6 (Colly) Copies of photographs.
Mark-X7 CD containing photographs.
PW-3 was cross-examined at length by Ld. SLO for defendant/DDA.
d). PW-4 Sh. Khem Chand Sharma, Patwari, Halqua Mehrauli, Delhi deposed in place of earlier Halka patwari PW-3 Sh. Akhey Singh. PW-4 brought the summoned record and deposed that Ex.PW-4/1 to PW-4/5 are the Khasra Girdawaris of the year 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 which are true copies as per their record. That the new number of Khasra no.1659 is 1114 and 1115 admeasuring 8 bighas 5 biswas and 36 Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-11/42
- 12 -
bigha 18 biswas respectively. That there is a construction on these Khasra numbers and people are residing therein and in some part time there is a kabristan also. That in some part there is a garden. That some part is lying vacant also. That as per respective record, this land belongs to Gaon Sabha.
e). PW-4 Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Halka Patwari, Village Mehrauli posted in the office of SDM Mehrauli deposed that Khasra girdwari of Khasra no.1114 and 1115 measuring 8 bighas 5 biswas and 36 bighas and 18 biswas respectively for the year 1982-83 to 1987-88 of Village Mehrauli is with office Kanoongo, Record Room, District Magistrate Office, MB Road, Saket.
f). PW-5 Sh. Ashok, JJA, Record Room (Session), THC, Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. the original file of suit bearing no.260/80 titled Delhi Wakf Board Vs. Phool Singh and Others bearing Goshwara no.967 decided on 21.02.1986. PW-5 compared the attested copy of the final judgment dated 21.02.1986 already exhibited as Ex.PW-3/9 with the record brought by him and stated that same is true and correct as per the record.
PW-5 was also cross-examined on behalf of DDA.
g). PW-6 Sh. Bijender Singh, Patwari from Record Room Revenue, SBI Building, THC, brought the summoned record i.e., Wazib-ul-Arz (settlement report of Collector) for the year 1880. PW-6 compared the attested copy of the Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-12/42
- 13 -
same, which is already Ex.PW-3/13, with the record brought by him and the same is true and correct as per the record. PW-6 also brought the summoned record i.e., Wazib-ul-Arz (settlement report of Collector) for the year 1908. He deposed that the said record is in absolute dilapidated condition. That the certified copy already exhibited as Ex.PW-3/7 has been issued by the office of Revenue Record Room and the same bears seal and the same was applied on 10.12.2010 and issued on 16.12.2010 as per the date mentioned in the seal. That presently he is working in the said office only. That the other summoned record i.e., the copy of the order dated 09.04.1973 passed by SDM/RC is not in our record room and the said record should be summoned from the record room i.e. CRR, Revenue Record Room, First Floor, SBI Building, THC, Delhi.
PW-6 was also cross-examined on behalf of DDA.
h). PW-7 Ms. Rekha Harjai, Statistical Assistant from Land & Building Department, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. notification dated 19.01.2007 bearing no. F.12(8)2005-L&B/Plg./15677 passed by the Land and Building Department in respect of the de-notification of the areas as mentioned in the said notification and the attested copy of the same is Ex.PW-7/1 (3 pages).
PW-7 was also cross-examined on behalf of DDA.
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-13/42
- 14 -
i). PW-8 Sh. Rattan Pal Singh (Civil Defence), working as Office Asst. SDM Office, Saket, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. original registers with respect to Khasra Girdawaris for the year 1982 to 1983, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 of Khasra no.1114 and 1115 of Village Mehrauli and attested copies of the same are already Ex.PW-3/5 (colly).
PW-8 was also cross-examined on behalf of DDA.
j). PW-9 Sh. Praveen Kumar, Kanoongo, Revenue Record Room, Tis Hazari Court brought the summoned record i.e. order dated 09.04.1973 passed in case titled as Gaon Sabha Mehrauli Vs. Sh. Dhawal passed by the then SDM, Delhi Cantt. That the said order is part of the case file titled above bearing case no.134/1972 U/s 86A of DLR Act. That the photocopy of the said order is today placed on record and exhibited as Ex.PW-9/1 (OSR) (objected to by the DDA).
PW-9 was also cross-examined at length on behalf of DDA.
Thereafter PW-9 was re-examined and deposed that as per the record after the order dated 28.11.1973 passed by The Additional Collector, the Revenue Asst. Sh. A.K. Guha vide order dated 22.03.1974 disposed of fifteen cases titled as Gaon Sabha, Mehrauli Vs. Ramphal & Ors. He exhibited the photocopy of the said order as Ex.PW-9/2 (OSR).
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-14/42
- 15 -
PW-9 was again cross-examined on behalf of DDA.
Thereafter, vide separate statement, Ld. counsel for plaintiff closed PE on 19.09.2019 and the matter was proceeded further for DE.
Defendant Evidence: -
14.The plaintiff got examined three witnesses i.e. Sh. Vijender Kumar as DW-1, Sh. Ghanshyam as DW-2 (evidence not to be read being incomplete) and Sh. Sachin Kumar as DW-3.
a). DW-1 Sh. Vijender Kumar, Kanoongo with DDA led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. DW-1/A. DW-1 also relied upon certain documents which are as under: -
Identification Mark Description
Ex. DW-1/1 (OSR) Photocopy of notification dated
20.08.1974.
Mark DW-1/2 Photocopy of Khatoni Pamaish of
the year 1980
Ex. DW-1/3 Photocopy of the Khasra Girdwari.
DW-1 was also cross-examined at length on behalf of plaintiff.
c). DW-3 Sh. Sachin Kumar, Patwari from Office of SDM, Mehrauli exhibited the following summoned record:-
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-15/42
- 16 -
Identification Description
Mark
Ex. DW3/1 Khatoni Pamaish for the year 1981 for
Khasra number 1659(Old) (1113 New),
village Mehrauli, New Delhi, area
measuring 1 bigha 15 biswa.
Ex. DW3/2 Khatoni Pamaish for the year 1981 for
Khasra number 1659(Old) (1115 New),
village Mehrauli, New Delhi, area
measuring 36 bigha 18 biswa.
Ex. DW3/3 Khatoni Pamaish for the year 1981 for
Khasra number 1659(Old) (1114 New),
village Mehrauli, New Delhi, area
measuring 8 bigha 5 biswa.
Ex. DW3/4 Khatoni Pamaish for the year 1981 for
Khasra number 1659(Old) (1116 New),
village Mehrauli, New Delhi, area
measuring 1 bigha 10 biswa.
Ex. DW3/5 Khasra Girdawari for the year 2015 & 2017
for Khasra number 1113 measuring 1 bigha 15 biswa, 1114 measuring 8 bigha 5 biswa, 1115 measuring 36 bigha 18 biswa and 1116 measuring 1 bigha 10 biswa of village Mehrauli, New Delhi.
Ex.DW3/6 Aks- Shizra showing Khasra number 1113- 1116 of village Mehrauli, New Delhi.
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-16/42
- 17 -
DW-3 was also cross-examined at length on behalf of plaintiff Thereafter, vide separate statement, Ld. counsel for defendant/DDA closed DE on 15.04.2024 and the matter was proceeded further for final arguments.
Decision with reasons: -
15.The arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties at length and record has been carefully perused. During the course of final arguments, parties placed reliance on their pleadings and evidence advanced on their behalf. The written arguments filed forms part of the record and same is not being reiterated for the sake of brevity, however, relevant arguments have been addressed at the relevant placed herein below. Now, this Court shall give its issue-
wise findings. Firstly, issue no.5 and 6 are being dealt with and thereafter findings upon remaining issues is as follows:-
16. Issue No. (5) & (6) -
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed? OPP (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed?
The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff.
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-17/42
- 18 -
That the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking the relief of declaration of ownership over the land situated in Khasra no.1659, measuring 27 bigha and some biswas along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction thereby restraining defendant/ DDA, its agents, employees, etc. from the demolishing the houses or interfering in any manner in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the land by the members of plaintiff Samiti.
The brief case of the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff is a samiti registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. That the member of the samiti are the native residents of village Mehrauli since the time of their ancestors over the land situated in Khasra no.1659 belonging to Gaon Sabha. That a part of the suit land is being used for inhabitants of the abadi and some part is being used for cremation of children/kabristan. That the cause of action to institute the present suit inhered in plaintiff samiti when the officials of DDA demolished the Ambedkar Bhawan on 30.04.1992 and further threatened the inhabitants/members of the plaintiff samiti with demolition of their houses and eviction.
That the plaintiff samiti got examined a number of witnesses and tendered in evidence a plethora of documentary evidence. That the prime witness on behalf of the plaintiff samiti is PW3 Sh. Jagdish Bharti who tendered in evidence the registration certificate of plaintiff society as Ex.PW3/2 along with resolution dated 25.08.2017 thereby Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-18/42
- 19 -
authorizing the PW3 as Ex.PW3/1A and the list of members of samiti has been tendered in evidence as Ex.PW3/4. It is pertinent to mention that, the plaintiff side has heavily placed reliance on the copy of Khasra Girdawari since 1982 as EX. PW 3/5, copy of settlement report of 1908 as Ex.PW3/7 and copy of Wajib-ul-Arz (settlement report of collector) of the year 1880 as Ex.PW3/13.
Before adverting to the appraisal of the documentary evidence standard on behalf of the plaintiff side, it is pertinent to mention that, it is an admitted case of the plaintiff that the suit land i.e., 27 bighas and some biswas of land comprising in Khasra no.1659 (old) and new Khasra no.1114 and 1115 of village Mehrauli belongs to the Gaon Sabha as per the revenue documents i.e. Khasra Girdawari. However, same has been claimed to be in possession, use and occupation of the members of plaintiff samiti since the time of their ancestors, though without categorically mentioning any specific period of time. In this regard plaintiff side has placed reliance Khasra girdawri of 1982 Ex. PW3/5, settlement report Ex. 3/7, judgement dated 21.02.1986 Ex. PW3/9 and Wajib-ul-Arz Ex. 3/13 to the effect that, the suit land was being used and occupied by the abadi and part of the suit land was being used as a kabristan. However, the neither contains the name of the plaintiff samiti explicitly nor vest ownership rights over the suit land. Further, these documents do not show continuous long standing settled possession of the Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-19/42
- 20 -
suit land with plaintiff samiti till the institution of suit and till date.
Per contra, the case of DDA is that the suit land belongs to DDA as the same was placed at the disposal of DDA by the Government of India vide notification no. SO.2190 dated 10.08.1974 published in the gazette on the 24.08.1994 for maintenance and devolvement thereof as green land. It is thus the case of DDA that the suit land is owned by DDA and the horticulture department of DDA is in the possession of the suit land.
Before adverting further, at this stage it is vital to discuss the cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses qua certain crucial admissions. The relevant excerpts of the cross- examination of PW2 Sh. Phool Singh is reproduced hereunder for brevity and the same reads as follows: -
"(...) The members of society are having its office in Khasra no.1659 (new Khasra number is 1115) situated and members are in possession of this land since long about 100 years. Earlier the part of land was being used for gher gitwar and part of land was used for burrying the children and part of land is being occupied by the members of the society having houses thereon... The society is also registered under the Societies Registration Act... Land is unacquired one and as such there is no question of payment of compensation to the members since in the records lands has been shown in the name of Gaon Sabha and plaintiff members being the members of Gaon Sabha are entitled to retain the possession and protect the Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-20/42
- 21 -
possession.(...) "
Further the relevant except of another witness also PW2 namely Sh. Tek Chand is as follows:
"No notice was served upon DDA before filing the present suit.... It is correct that the land of Khasra no.1659 belongs to Gram Sabha. No allotment was made by the Gram Sabha in the name of plaintiff samiti and its members. Vol. The Gram Sabha never objected in the occupation and possession of the samiti and its members at any point of time. It is wrong to suggest that Gram Sabha never objected the occupation and possession of the samiti and its members. It is correct that the village Mehrauli has been urbanized. I do not know the date on which the village Mehrauli urbanized. The Gram Sabha is in existence of village Mehrauli but I never attended the meetings of Gram Sabha... It is wrong to suggest that upon urbanization of the village, the land of Gram Sabha transferred to the Central Government/ Union of India. It is wrong to suggest that the entire land of Khasra no.1659 of village Mehrauli has been transferred to DDA by the Central Government vide notification no.SO/2190 dated 20.08.1974. ... All the surrounding area of disputed land of 27 bighas is lying vacant and boundary has been constructed by the DDA. Surrounding area is within the possession of DDA. It is wrong to suggest that the disputed land is in the possession of DDA. The disputed land measuring 27 bighas is also lying vacant. The said land is lying vacant after demolition. The demolition was carried out about one week prior to 30.04.1992... Except the Ambedkar Bhawan,, the other structures were Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-21/42
- 22 -
demolished. Vol. These structures were partly demolished and even the notice stand is still there. It is wrong to suggest that all the structure were demolished completely and no notice stand is there.... It is correct that the Gram Sabha and any other Government department never handed the possession of the disputed land to the plaintiff society and its members. Vol. We are in possession of the suit property on our own since the time of our ancestors. It is wrong to suggest that we are not in the possession of the suit property since the time of our ancestors. It is correct that the plaintiff samiti and its members never applied to any authority to get transferred or mutated the disputed suit property in their name... It is correct that no ownership documents in existence in favour of plaintiff samiti and its members of disputed land... DDA has constructed the boundary wall at distance of 40 - 45 meters from the disputed land. It is wrong to suggest that Ambedkar Bhawan was not demolished by DDA. It is correct that no case for compensation in respect of demolition of Ambedkar Bhawan has been filed by us. ... The denotification mentioned in my affidavit is regarding handing over of the area of the MCD. It is correct that vide denotification, only building activities and maintenance of road etc, were transferred to MCD. ... I have gone through the judgment dated 21.02.1986 in the case titled as "Delhi Waqf Board vs Phool Singh." DDA or any other Government property (should have been authority, typographical error) was not party. ... I cannot read the site plan Ex.PW1/4 and so I cannot tell whether of the date of filing of the suit in hand, the land in dispute was in the same form as depicted in the site plan Ex.PW1/4. It is correct Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-22/42
- 23 -
that as on today, nobody is residing at the disputed land and houses are not in existence. The position mentioned in proceeding para regarding disputed land since the day of demolition(...)"
Further, the relevant excerpt of cross-examination of PW-3 Sh. Jagdish Bharti is as follow: -
"(...) It is correct that no allotment letter has been filed. It is correct that the land pertains to Gram Sabha. I know that after a village is urbanized the Gram Sabha land of the said village vests in Central Government. Vol. We were in the possession of suit property before urbanization. I know that vide separate notification, this land transferred to DDA by the Central Government. It is correct that the suit property has been placed at the disposal of DDA but our possession has been shown in the plan prepared by DDA. I do not know as to whether the suit property has been transferred to the horticulture department of DDA for development of green area. The suit property has been demolished by the DDA in the year 1992. thereafter, no construction has been conducted by the plaintiff samiti. There was no sanction plan for construction raised by plaintiff samiti. Vol. further no sanction was required as the suit property was in rural area. It is correct that no permission was sought from any Government authority for using the suit land for the purpose of burial of dead children.... It is correct that no suit seeking damages against DDA for demolition of Ambedkar Bhawan has been filed by the plaintiff.... It is correct that DDA has fenced its land which also comprises the suit property to protect its land from encroachment. It is wrong to suggest that we are an encroacher on DDAs land. It is further wrong to Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-23/42
- 24 -
suggest that we do not have title documents, allotment letter pertaining to the suit property or that we do not have any right to remain in possession of suit property(...)"
A careful perusal of the documents tendered on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the testimony of plaintiff witnesses as reproduced herein above crystallizes the dispute between the parties thereto to the effect that the plaintiff witnesses being the members of the plaintiff samiti have themselves admitted that firstly, the land belongs to the Gram Sabha and upon the urbanization of village Mehrauli, same vested in the Central Government. Secondly, that the structures on the suit land were demolished in entirety by DDA and the possession thereof was taken by DDA, so much so, DDA has constructed a boundary wall over the suit land along with the fencing. Thirdly, that since the demolition by the DDA in the year 1992 the suit land lying vacant and plaintiff samiti or its member are not in the possession of the same whatsoever nor there are any houses existing at the suit land and as such none of the members of the plaintiff samiti are residing at the suit land. Fourthly, the plaintiff samiti has no title documents or any authority letter from any competent authority thereby authorizing / allotting the possession, occupation and use of suit land in favour of the plaintiff samiti or its member except the documents i.e. Khasra Girdawari Ex.PW-3/5, Settlement report of 1908 Ex.PW-3/7, copy of settlement report of 1880 as Ex.PW-3/13 and a judgment dated 21.02.1986 in the matter titled as Delhi Waqf board vs. Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-24/42
- 25 -
Phool Singh Ex.PW-3/9. However, it is pertinent to mention that these documents are neither title documents nor confer any right / title / interest over the suit land upon the plaintiff samiti or its member.
At this stage, it is further pertinent to mention that even though the plaintiff samiti and its member may have been in possession in the suit land prior to the demolition by the DDA in the year 1992. However, plaintiff side has not placed any document on record to show the period/duration over which they have been in the possession of the suit land for a continuous period till the filing of the suit. However, it is an admitted case of plaintiff side, that since the demolition by DDA, the possession of the suit land has been taken over by DDA in its entirety and neither the plaintiff samiti nor its member are in possession thereof. This further bring us to the aspect that though plaintiff samiti has sought the declaration of ownership of about 27 bighas of land, however, without filing any document showing their right/ title / interest thereto or by raising any plea of adverse possession. Further, the plaintiff samiti has not even sought any relief for declaration and cancellation of the notification dated 20.08.1974 nor has sought the relief of possession before this Court which further renders suit of the plaintiff not maintainable as per the settled principles of section 34 of Specific Relief Act.
Further, this Court is fortified by the ratio held in the locus classicus of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-25/42
- 26 -
by Lrs [AIR 2008 SC 2033], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the rules governing a suit seeking permanent injunction simplicitor and held, inter alia, that:
"11. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.
11.1) Where a plaintiffs is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2) Where the title of the plaintiffs is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3) Where the plaintiffs is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiffs will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-26/42
- 27 -
injunction. Where the title of plaintiffs is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiffs will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
12. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiffs's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiffs to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiffs has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiffs's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs and it will not be necessary for the plaintiffs to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiffs, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiffs's title, then there is a need for the plaintiffs, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the Court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-27/42
- 28 -
suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
13. In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs's possession, the plaintiffs will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiffs may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as for example an agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.
14. But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the Court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-28/42
- 29 -
title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where Court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the Court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiffs to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs."
[Emphasis Supplied] Further in the case titled Vasantha Vs Rajalakshmi @Rajaram, [(2024) 5 SCC 282], wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the suits for declaration U/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act without seeking the consequential relief that:
51.In Venkataraja and Ors. Vs Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (Dead) thr. LRs (2-Judge Bench), the purpose behind Section 34 was elucidated by this Court. It was observed that the purpose behind the inclusion of the proviso is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. It was further expounded that a mere declaratory decree remains non-executable in most cases. This Court noted that the suit was never amended, even at a later stage to seek the consequential relief and therefore, it was held to be not maintainable. This position of law has been reiterated recently in Akkamma and Ors. Vs Vemavathi and Ors. (2-Judge Bench).
52.This Court in Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust, Virudhunagar v.
Chandran and Others (2-Judge Bench) while reversing the High Court decree, observed that because of Section 34 of the SRA, 1963, the Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-29/42
- 30 -
plaintiff not being in possession and claiming only declaratory relief, ought to have claimed the relief of recovery of possession. It was held that the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit on the basis that the plaintiff has filed a suit for a mere declaration without relief for recovery, which is clearly not maintainable.
53.(xxx)
54.Adverting to the facts of the present case, on a perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff was aware that the appellant herein was in possession of the suit property and therefore it was incumbent upon him to seek the relief which follows. Plaintiff himself has stated that defendant no. 1 was in possession of the subject property and had sought to transfer possession of the same to defendant no.2, thereby establishing that he himself was not in possession of the subject property. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent on this issue. We note that after the death of the life-estate holder in 2004, there was no attempt made by the original plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek the relief of recovery of possession. It is settled law that amendment of a plaint can be made at any stage of a suit, even at the second appellate stage."
[Emphasis Supplied] This Court is further fortified by the judgement in the case of Vinay Krishna vs Keshav Chandra & Anr. [AIR 1993 SC 957], where it was held that, when there was a further consequential relief in addition to the relief of declaration Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-30/42
- 31 -
which had come in the knowledge of the plaintiff such as the relief of possession and the plaintiff fails to seek it, then suit is necessarily barred under Section 34 of the SRA and the Court has no discretion to grant any relief. It was thus held that:
"12. We have carefully considered the above arguments. We are clearly of the view that bar under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act would undoubtedly operate in this case. 'We may add that present Section 34 is in pari-materia. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 reads as under:
Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its distraction make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.
Provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title omits to do so.
13. From the reading of the plaint it is clear that the specific case of the plaintiff Jamuna Kunwar was that she was in exclusive possession of property bearing No. 52 as well she thought that it was not necessary to seek the additional relief of possession. However, in view of the written statement of both the first and the second defendant raising the plea of bar under Section 42, the plaintiff ought to have amended and prayed for the relief of possession also. In as much as the Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-31/42
- 32 -
plaintiff did not choose to do so she took a risk. It is also now evident that she was not in exclusive possession because admittedly Keshav Chandra and Jagdish Chandra were in possession. There were also other tenants in occupation. In such an event the relief of possession ought to have been asked for. The failure to do so undoubtedly bars the discretion of the Court in granting the decree for declaration."
[Emphasis Supplied] Upon a meaningful reading of the above cited judgment, it is abundantly clear that where there is a dispute with respect to the ownership of the suit property and further the plaintiff is not in the possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit then the plaintiff shall not be entitled to the relief of permanent injunction for want of the consequential relief of declaration as well as possession. It is further pertinent to mention that DDA has even disputed the alleged act of demolition stating that no such demolition drive was kept as per record. Per contra, the plaintiffs have only filed certain photographs, which does not bear any time or location stamp nor there is any cogent proof of the alleged demolition. Further, in the present matter the DDA has been found to be in the possession of the suit land as per the material available on record and even as per the admissions of the plaintiff witnesses, thus it was incumbent upon the plaintiff samiti to institute an appropriate suit seeking declaration along with the consequential relief of possession, permanent injunction Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-32/42
- 33 -
and seeking declaration/cancellation of notification dated 20.08.1974, whereby land vested in DDA.
At the same time, it is further pertinent to mention that DDA has tendered in evidence notification dated 20.08.1974 as Ex.DW1/1(OSR) whereby the entire village Mehrauli was placed at disposal of DDA for its maintenance and development. Further, DDA has placed on record Khatoni Pamaish of the year 1980 as Mark DW1/2 and Khasra Girdawari as marked DW1/3 showing ownership with the Government and possession of DDA. Further DDA has bolstered these documents with jama bandi record as Ex.DW2/1 showing ownership with Government and possession with DDA which is further supported by Ex.DW2/2 i.e. the record of Khasra Girdawari and sizra plan as Ex.DW2/3. DDA further got examined DW3 i.e. Patwari from SDM office Mehrauli who tendered in evidence Khatoni Pamaish of the year 1981 as Ex.DW3/1 to DW3/4 pertaining to Khasra no.1659 (old) (new Khasra no.1113 to 1116) showing the ownership of the suit land with the Government and use of land as shamlat deh land along with a burial ground and further the Khasra girdarwari of the year 2015 and 2016 as Ex.DW3/5 showing ownership of suit land with Government and possession of DDA along with Aks Sizra of Khasra no.1113 to 1116 of village Mehrauli as Ex.DW3/6. It is pertinent to mention that except the formal questions pertaining to the personal knowledge, no questions were put from the DDA witnesses with respect to Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-33/42
- 34 -
the alleged act of demolition and possession of plaintiff samiti over the suit land and current position of suit land.
It is noteworthy that, as per the settled principle of law, the general burden of proving a suit lies upon the plaintiff and further if the relief of declaration is sought then the burden upon the plaintiff is higher than mere preponderance of probabilities so much so the plaintiff is required its right/title or interest in the suit property by way of cogent title documents. Further, the admissions made by the plaintiff witnesses in the present matter as discussed herein above further evidently proved that in fact the suit land was allegedly being used as community land without any permission/allotment from any competent authority and that the plaintiff samiti is not in possession of suit land since the alleged demolition by DDA in the year 1992 and further plaintiff has not sought for the consequential relief of possession as well. Therefore, in light of the above, the plaintiff samiti has not proved its case and further the suit of the plaintiff samiti is not found to be not maintainable as per the settled tenets of law of declaration and injunction.
In these circumstances, issue no.(5 & 6) are decided in favour of defendant/DDA and against the plaintiff.
17.Issue No.(1) -
1). Whether the suit is barred for non service of notice U/s 53 B, DD Act? OPD Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-34/42
- 35 -
The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
It is the contention of DDA that since the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, therefore, it was incumbent upon them to serve the statutory notice upon DDA U/s 53B of the DDA Act. It was further contended by DDA that the present suit is not maintainable in light of the provision U/s 53 B of the DDA Act.
In this regard, the defendant i.e., DDA has relied upon the provision under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 [hereinafter "the DDA Act"] on the ground that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 53B of the DDA Act; and therefore, should have served the mandatory notice under Section 53B of the DDA Act before instituting the present suit. Before adverting further, let us first discuss Section 53B of the DDA Act, which reads as under:
"53B. 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 Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-35/42
- 36 -
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 plaintiffs 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.]"
[Emphasis Supplied] In the present matter, the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the cause of action arose when DDA demolished the Ambedkar Bhawan on 30.04.1992 and further threatened the plaintiff that they will come again to demolish the houses. That as per the version of the plaintiff, the suit was instituted out of urgency due to the above said threatening and fear. At this stage, it is further pertinent to mention that plaintiff side has further admitted that no notice was served upon DDA U/s 53B of the DDA Act. It has further come in cross- examination of PW-2 and PW-3 as discussed in detail Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-36/42
- 37 -
herein above that the DDA had allegedly demolished the Ambedkar Bhawan as well as the adjoining properties of the plaintiff samiti members completely and that since then the suit land has been lying vacant. This contradicts the urgency version of the plaintiff and further shows that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands.
That since the instant suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration along with permanent injunction, therefore, plaintiff side ought to have served a notice upon DDA U/s 53B of the DDA Act.
Hence, issue no. (1) is decided in favour of the defendant/ DDA and against the plaintiff.
18.Issue No. (2) -
(2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
The instant issue has arisen from the fact that the plaintiff side has admittedly mentioned in their plaint that the suit land belongs to Gram Sabha, however, the plaintiff samiti members have been in the possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. In this regard, it was contended by DDA that even upon the bare averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint, it is evidently clear that the Union of India, the concerned Revenue Department and the Gram Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-37/42
- 38 -
Sabha should have been impleaded in the present matter being necessary parties. It is further the case of the defendant/ DDA that the suit property has further vested in DDA vide notification dated 20.08.1974 and was placed at the disposal of DDA for development of the area in question as green area, thus the same is within the possession of the horticulture department of DDA.
As already discussed in detail herein above, it is the admitted position of facts that the plaintiff side has themselves admitted that the suit land even as per the revenue records vested with the Government and they were occupying the suit land since the time of ancestors out of their own will and without any allotment or permission from any of the concerned authorities. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff should have impleaded the Government of India, concerned Revenue Authorities and Gram Sabha as parties to the present suit being necessary parties so much so that as per the revenue records placed on record on both the sides, the suit land is shown to be under the ownership of the Government. Hence, the present suit is also bad for non-impleadment of the necessary parties.
In these circumstances, issue no.(2) is decided in favour of the defendant/DDA and against the plaintiff.
19. Issue No.(3) -
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-38/42
- 39 -
present suit? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
With regard to this issue, it is the contention of DDA that, since the suit land is vested in DDA and Horticultural Department is in the possession of the suit land, and even admittedly, as per the case of the plaintiff the suit land belongs to Gram Sabha; therefore, plaintiff samiti has no right, title or interest in the suit land and thus, has no locus standi to institute the present suit.
However, Ex. DW3/1 to Ex. DW3/4 i.e., Khatoni Pamaish of the year 1981-1982 transpire that, the suit land was being used partly as shamlat deh and partly as kabristan, and same is also the contention of the plaintiff side. However, there is no material available on record to suggest long and continuous possession and occupation. Further, there is nothing on record to show that, plaintiff being a samiti was in fact in possession and for what duration and with any authority or not. Thus, this Court of the opinion that, defendant has been able to prove its burden and the same has been acquiesced by the plaintiff side for want of any cross-examination of the defendant witnesses on this aspect.
Accordingly, issue no. (3) is decided in favour of defendant/DDA and against the plaintiff.
Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-39/42
- 40 -
20. Issue No.(4) -
(4) Whether the suit land is a Gaon Sabha land, placed at the disposal of DDA by notification of Government of India? If so, its effect? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
In this regard, it is being reiterated at the cost of repetition that, DDA has tendered in evidence the notification dated 20.08.1974 as Ex.DW1/1(OSR) whereby the entire village Mehrauli was placed at the disposal of DDA for its maintenance and development. Further, DDA has placed on record Khatoni Pamaish of the year 1980 as Mark DW1/2 and Khasra Girdawari as Mark DW1/3 showing the ownership of the suit land with the Government and possession of DDA. Further DDA has bolstered these documents with jamabandi record as Ex.DW2/1 showing ownership of suit land with Government and possession with DDA which is further supported by Ex.DW2/2 i.e. the record of Khasra Girdawari and sizra plan as Ex.DW2/3. DDA further got examined DW3 i.e. Patwari from SDM office Mehrauli who tendered in evidence Khatoni Pamaish of the year 1981 as Ex.DW3/1 to DW3/4 pertaining to Khasra no.1659 (old) (new Khasra no.1113 to 1116) for the years 1981 and 1982, showing the ownership of the suit land with the Government and use of land as shamlat deh land along with a burial ground. Further the Khasra girdarwari of the year 2015 and 2016 as Ex.DW3/5 Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-40/42
- 41 -
showing ownership of suit land with Government and possession of DDA along with Aks Sizra of Khasra no.1113 to 1116 of village Mehrauli as Ex.DW3/6.
Further as per the admissions of PW-2 and PW-3, DDA took the possession of suit land by carrying out the alleged demolition on 30.04.1992. It has been further admitted by PW-2 and PW-3 that, the suit land has been lying vacant and DDA has built boundary walls along with fencing. Further, the plaintiff has neither sought for the cancellation of the notification dated 20.08.1974 nor the relief of possession. Further vide notification dated 20.08.1974, the Government of India, placed the Village Mehrauli at the disposal of DDA for development of entire Mehrauli Village as a green land, owing to which the possession was transferred to DDA as shown in Ex. DW3/5 i.e., Khasra Girdawari of the suit land. Hence, the suit land stands vested in DDA vide notification dated 20.08.1974 and the same has not been challenged by plaintiff side.
Thus, issue no. (4) is also decided in favour of the defendant/DDA and against the plaintiff.
21.Issue no.(7) -
(7) Relief - In view of the findings given on issues no.(1) to (6), documents placed on record, pleadings of the parties and evidence led by the parties, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-41/42
- 42 -
dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
Digitally signedDISHA by DISHA SINGH SINGH 2024.12.16 Date:
17:54:37 +0530 (This judgment contains 42 pages and each (DISHA SINGH) page has been signed by the undersigned) Civil Judge-02, West, Announced in the open Court Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 16.12.2024 Suit No.607014/2016 The Jatav Panchayat Ghar Samiti Vs. DDA Page-42/42