Delhi District Court
Partap Singh vs Dda on 24 February, 2026
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS)
SUIT No. 6981/2016
CNR No. DLWT03-000007-1996
In The Matter Between:
(as per last amended memo of parties)
1. Sh. Pratap Singh
S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand,
2. Sh. Umesh Chand
S/o Late Sh. Kartar Singh
Both R/o. 4258, Aryapura, Sabzi Mandi,
Delhi.
Through Attorney
Sh. Ishwar Singh
S/o Sh. Mani Ram
R/o. A-78, Prashant Vihar,
Delhi - 110085
..........................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25
16:57:13
+0530
Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 1/37
- 2 -
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi
.....................DEFENDANT
Suit filed on :- 03.02.1996
Judgment Reserved on :- 12.12.2025
Date of decision :- 24.02.2026
Decision :- DISMISSED
INDEX
Pleadings of the Plaintiffs .............................................................................. 3
Pleadings of Defendant .................................................................................. 6
Issues .............................................................................................................. 8
Plaintiffs' Evidence ........................................................................................ 9
Defendant's Evidence................................................................................... 19
Analysis and Findings .................................................................................. 22
Internal contradictions in plaint. ............................................................... 22
Revenue records - Jamabandi with mutation entries and Fard Patwar. ... 24
Defects in the site plan and its proof ........................................................ 25
The four demarcation reports -- admissibility and scope. ....................... 28
Onus and the plaintiffs' burden of proof .................................................. 32
Consequence -- unidentifiable subject-matter and injunctive
relief................... ................................................................................. 33
DDA's records on acquisition and possession. ......................................... 33
Issue wise findings ....................................................................................... 35
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 36
Relief ............................................................................................................ 37
Cost .............................................................................................................. 37
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
JUDGMENT
Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 By this judgment, this Court shall decide a suit for 16:57:18 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 2/37
- 3 -
permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant Delhi Development Authority ("DDA" in short, hereinafter). Before adjudicating the issues framed in the present suit, it is crucial to concisely state the pleadings in the present suit.
PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' alleged peaceful possession of a chunk of land falling in Khasra no. 1041/353 and situated in village Sidhora Khurd, Delhi.
2. The plaintiffs claim to be co-owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1041/353, measuring 9 Bighas and 2 Biswas, forming the southern portion of the said khasra, situated in village and revenue estate of Sidhora Khurd, Delhi and shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "suit land"). According to them, the land is vacant, uneven, full of stones (described as "Dakhli Pahar"), full of pits, and not fit for cultivation. They assert that the property is ancestral and has devolved upon them from their forefathers.
They state that they are in physical possession of the land and are managing and supervising it.
3. It is pleaded that the larger extent of land comprised in Khasra No. 1041/353, measuring 68 Bighas and 18 Biswas, was acquired by the Government under Award No. 9/77/78 dated 21.11.1977 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was later on de-notified vide notification dated 09.10.1985. The Digitally signed by plaintiffs thus contend that the acquisition of khasra no. Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.02.25 16:57:22 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 3/37
- 4 -
1041/353 stood withdrawn and the land remained free from acquisition.
4. The plaintiffs describe the boundaries of their 9 Bighas and 2 Biswas portion as follows: to the west by road/abadi area; to the east by land of the Cantonment area (Khasra No. 1039/353); to the north by land acquired under Khasra No. 1040/353; and to the south by the remaining built-up portion of Khasra No. 1041/353.
5. It is further pleaded that adjoining land comprised in Khasra No. 1040/353 was acquired under Award No. 10/94-95 and possession thereof was taken by DDA, though fencing has allegedly not yet been installed there.
6. The gravamen of the suit is that officials of the defendant/DDA, in collusion with certain local persons, have been attempting to encroach upon the plaintiffs' land comprised in Khasra No. 1041/353. The plaintiffs assert uninterrupted possession over the suit land. They also state that an old structure consisting of four rooms with a verandah exists on the land since time immemorial and is in a dilapidated condition requiring urgent repairs.
7. According to the plaintiffs, when they commenced minor repairs in the last week of January 1996, officials of the defendant visited the site, obstructed the work, removed the tools of the masons, and threatened the labourers. The plaintiffs assert that such repairs were permissible under the relevant building bye-laws and required no special sanction. They allege that similar obstruction was caused again on 02.02.1996, when tools were allegedly taken away and Digitally signed by labourers were forced to leave.
Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:57:27 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 4/37
- 5 -
8. The plaintiffs maintain that they are the sole and absolute owners in possession of the suit land and that no part of their land stands acquired or notified under the Land Acquisition Act. They assert that the DDA has authority only over land duly acquired and cannot interfere with land not so acquired.
9. It is further alleged that from about 29.01.1996 onwards, DDA officials repeatedly visited the site with barbed wire and fencing material, claiming that the plaintiffs' land was also under acquisition, though no documentary authority was shown. The plaintiffs contend that they explained and demonstrated the demarcation of acquired land as marked by the LAC at the time of handing over possession to DDA, however, the officials of DDA paid no heed to them.
10. On 02.02.1996 at about 11:00 AM, according to the plaint, DDA officials again visited the property, stopped repair work, impounded tools, and attempted to lay barbed wire fencing across the suit land. Upon resistance by the plaintiffs and local residents, the officials allegedly left, but also issued threats of returning with greater force to carry out the fencing. The plaintiffs state that no written order from any competent authority was shown to justify such action.
11. On these averments, the plaintiffs seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officials, employees and agents from dispossessing them or interfering in their peaceful possession and in the work of levelling the land, along with such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2026.02.25 16:57:31 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 5/37
- 6 -
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANT
12.Upon issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance. Originally, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was also one of the defendants. However, MCD was deleted from the array of parties on 03.02.1997 as it pleaded that it has no concern with the area where suit land falls.
13. At the outset, DDA challenges the locus standi of the plaintiffs, contending that they have no right, title, or lawful claim over the land in question. According to DDA, the disputed land does not fall in Khasra No. 1041/353, as alleged by the plaintiffs, but forms part of Khasra No. 1040/353 (min), Village Sadhora Khurd, Delhi. It is stated that land measuring 12 Bighas and 8 Biswas in Khasra No. 1040/353 (min) was acquired vide Award No. 10/94-95 dated 07.06.1994. After acquisition, possession was handed over by the Land Acquisition Collector/Land & Building Department to DDA, and physical possession of 9 Bighas out of the total 12 Bighas and 8 Biswas was taken on 20.10.1994. The remaining 3 Bighas and 8 Biswas could not be taken over due to alleged illegal constructions raised thereon. On this basis, DDA asserts that the plaintiffs have no entitlement to seek any relief in respect of the acquired land.
14. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs are unauthorized encroachers over government land and therefore are not entitled to any equitable or legal relief contending that encroachers cannot seek injunction against the true owner.
15. A further preliminary objection has been taken regarding non-service of statutory notice under Section 53-B of the Digitally signed by Lalit Delhi Development Act, which is stated to be mandatory Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:57:36 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 6/37
- 7 -
before institution of a suit against DDA. On this ground also, the suit is alleged to be not maintainable.
16. On merits, DDA denies that the plaintiffs are co-owners or in possession of land in Khasra No. 1041/353. It is specifically pleaded that no documents have been placed on record by the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim. DDA reiterates that the land in dispute falls within Khasra No. 1040/353 (min), which stands acquired under Award No. 10/94-95 dated 07.06.1994, and that physical possession was taken over by DDA on 20.10.1994.
17. It is further stated that averments related to de-notification of khasra no. 1041/353 are neither material nor relevant to the present dispute, since the land in question, according to DDA, forms part of Khasra No. 1040/353 (min) and stands duly acquired. DDA specifically denies that the suit land falls in Khasra No. 1041/353 or that the plaintiffs are owners or in possession of 9 Bighas and 2 Biswas. It is also stated that the alleged site plan was not supplied, and therefore no comment can be offered on its correctness.
18. In response to the allegations concerning fencing activity, DDA states that after taking possession of the acquired land in Khasra No. 1040/353 (min), it commenced fencing work in order to protect the acquired land from encroachers. However, due to a restraint order dated 04.03.1996 passed by the predecessor Court, fencing work could not be completed. DDA further contends that the plaintiffs have no legal right to carry out construction or repairs over acquired land belonging to DDA; that DDA is well within its authority to protect government land from unauthorized encroachments and land Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:57:40 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 7/37
- 8 -
grabbing; that the plaintiffs themselves have encroached upon approximately 7 Bighas and 4 Biswas of DDA land by putting up barbed fencing and are attempting to encroach upon additional land.
19.The allegations that DDA officials threatened the plaintiffs or attempted illegal dispossession are denied. DDA reiterates that fencing work was undertaken solely to secure acquired land and that the same was interrupted only due to the Court's interim order dated 04.03.1996. It is stated that fencing would be completed subject to appropriate orders of the Court.
20. It is maintained that the suit is misconceived, without merit, and liable to dismissal. While jurisdiction of the Court is not disputed, the prayer clause of the plaint is denied in entirety. DDA prays that the suit be dismissed with costs.
21.The plaintiffs filed a replication and denied the averments made by the defendant in its WS.
ISSUES
22. Based on the pleadings of both the sides, following issues were framed on 22.05.2007:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-owner in possession of land bearing Khasra No.1041/353 situated in the village and revenue estate of Sidora Khurd? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.
3. Whether the suit land forms part of Kh. No.1040/353 placed at disposal of DDA as stated in the written statement? OPD Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar
4. Whether the suit is barred for want of statutory notice U/s Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:57:45 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 8/37
- 9 -
53B of DD Act? OPD.
5. Relief PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE
23. Total 8 witnesses appeared in PE, as follows:
Sl. No. Purpose
PW-1 Appeared to prove case of plaintiffs
PW-2 Produced record pertaining to Jamabandi
PW-3 Produced record pertaining to Jamabandi,
mutation entries, aks shizra and demarcation reports.
PW-4 Produced record pertaining to de-
notification of khasra no. 1041/353 PW-5 Proved demarcation report of 2005 PW-6 Produced record of proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi PW-7 Produced record of proceedings before the Hon'ble Lokayukta PW-8 Produced record from Vigilance department, DDA
24.Plaintiff no.1, Sh. Pratap Singh appeared as PW-1. His evidence affidavit (Ex. P1) reproduced the contents of plaint and relied on following documents:
Identification mark Description of document Ex.PW1/1 Certified copy of Jamabandi.
Ex.PW1/2 Site plan.
Ex.PW1/3 Copy of notification.
Ex.PW1/4 Demarcation report dated 04.02.1988.
Ex.PW1/5 Demarcation report dated 14.02.1996.
Ex.PW1/6 Demarcation report dated 13.07.1999.
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Lalit
Date:
Kumar
Kumar 2026.02.25
16:57:50
+0530
Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 9/37
- 10 -
Ex.PW1/7 Demarcation report dated 28.01.2005.
Ex.PW1/8 High Court orders
24.1. In cross-examination, PW-1 denied that the suit land falls in Khasra No.1040/353 and maintained that it forms part of Khasra No.1041/353. He stated that he was unaware whether Khasra No.1040/353 had been acquired or whether possession thereof was with DDA. He denied being an encroacher and denied that the barracks and boundary wall at site formed part of Khasra No.1040/353.
However, he admitted that barracks and the boundary wall are situated in the property in dispute. Interestingly, the PW-1 does not explain how military's barracks are present at the suit land. He admitted that a prior suit had been filed against him by Ramjas Foundation before the then Civil Judge and that he was a party thereto, though he professed ignorance about allegations of illegal possession in that suit. He also stated that land matters were generally handled by his younger brother. 24.2. Regarding the site plan (Ex.PW1/2), he stated that it was prepared at his instance but was not signed by him. He could not state the scale used or the exact method of preparation and admitted that certain boundaries, including Khasra No.659/354 on the southern side, were not shown as he did not know the exact boundaries. He also stated that the architect might have checked the sizra and other revenue record and might have visited the suit Digitally land to measure the same before preparing the site plan, signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.02.25 16:57:54 +0530 but I am not aware of the same.
Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 10/37
- 11 -
24.3. On possession, PW-1 admitted that apart from the Jamabandi (Ex.PW1/1), he had filed no government or civic document to prove possession. He conceded that he never cultivated the land nor got it cultivated, stating that it contained "pahar" and was unsuitable for cultivation.
When confronted with entries showing kashtkars in the Jamabandi, he stated that he could not explain them as his father managed the land. He admitted that no lease deed had been executed by him in favour of the kashtkars and that he could not produce any such document. He also admitted filing only a photocopy of the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83.
24.4. PW-1 acknowledged that he had not filed any document showing ownership in the name of his grandfather or predecessor, though he claimed mutations were updated over time. He admitted that the land had never been partitioned among heirs and that daughters of his deceased brother were not impleaded in the suit. 24.5. PW-1 further admitted that his attorney, Sh. Ishwar Singh, had sold various portions of Khasra No.1041/353 and that approximately 9-10 bighas had been sold, though he denied complete alienation. He acknowledged that Faridpuri Colony exists for 25-30 years and falls partly in Khasra Nos.659/354 and 1041/353, but he could not specify the exact area or clearly identify it on the site plan. He also stated that he might have sold land to certain individuals but did not recall details. 24.6. With respect to the alleged old structure, PW-1 Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 stated it was constructed by his grandfather but admitted 16:57:58 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 11/37
- 12 -
he did not know whether permission was obtained and could produce no document showing its existence, antiquity, electricity or water connection, or payment of house tax.
24.7. He further admitted that he had not taken permission from the revenue department before effecting sales, though he claimed the Patwari noted the transactions. He did not remember the exact dimensions of Khasra Nos.1040/353 and 1041/353. While stating that both khasras were adjacent, he also stated they were not connected. He acknowledged that DDA had constructed a park on Khasra No.1040/353 and that no permanent structure exists thereon. He denied that the demarcation reports were incorrect and denied filing the suit to usurp government land.
24.8. Overall, the cross-examination discloses admissions regarding absence of independent documentary proof of possession & ownership, lack of clarity about boundaries and measurements, substantial sales of land through his attorney, non-joinder of certain heirs, and absence of documentary evidence establishing the existence or legality of the alleged old structure.
25. PW-2 - Sh. Karan Singh, Patwari of Village Sidhora Khurd, was examined to prove the revenue record relating to Khasra No.1041/353. He produced the original Jamabandi record and stated that in Column No.4 (ownership column), the name of Sh. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Chanda Singh is recorded as owner. He further stated that six mutations had been effected over time, as reflected in Column No.14. He Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:04 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 12/37
- 13 -
identified Ex.PW1/1 as the copy of Jamabandi issued by him and affirmed that it was a true copy of the original record. He also stated that there was no entry in the revenue record showing acquisition of Khasra No.1041/353 and that, as per record, the land was free from acquisition.
25.1. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the mutation entries were made prior to his posting and that he did not know who had made them. He stated that he had no personal knowledge of the dispute and was unaware of details such as the parentage of plaintiff Pratap Singh from the record. He conceded that revenue records do not reflect actual physical possession of the land. He further stated that mutation proceedings are processed by the Girdawar and that he had no personal knowledge regarding the mutations. He did not produce any additional revenue documents such as fard or patwari reports. He admitted that Ex.PW1/1 was not countersigned by any senior officer. He denied the suggestion that Khasra No.1041/353 had been acquired or that he was deposing falsely.
25.2. Overall, PW-2's testimony establishes the existence and contents of the Jamabandi and mutation entries in respect of Khasra No.1041/353, but his evidence is confined to official records only.
26. PW-3, Sh. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Patwari, office of SDM, Civil Lines, Delhi was examined as a revenue official to prove the mutation records, demarcation reports and the Aks Digitally signed by sajra relating to Khasra No.1041/353, Village Sidhora Khurd. Lalit Lalit Kumar He produced the Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 and Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:11 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 13/37
- 14 -
confirmed that the certified copy already exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 was correct as per the original record. He stated that mutation Nos.1761, 1924, 1945, 1946, 1951 and 1952 had been affected in respect of Khasra No.1041/353, along with a Fard Badar report dated 11.07.1996 relating to the total area of 66 Bighas 18 Biswas. He proved certified copies of these mutations as Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/6 and identified the signatures of the then Patwari on them. Photocopy of aks sajra was placed on record as Ex. PW-3/7 (OSR). He also produced the original Jamabandi (Ex.PW3/8, OSR) and copy of another Aks-Sajra (Ex.PW3/9, OSR), confirming that the copies on record matched the originals. 26.1. PW-3 further produced copies of demarcation reports dated 14.02.1996 (Ex.PW1/5), 08.07.1999 (Ex.PW1/6) and 13.01.2005/28.01.2005 (Ex.PW1/7), stating that the copies were correct as per official records. Referring to the village map (Ex.PW3/9), he stated that the southern boundary of Khasra No.1040/353, which is the northern boundary of Khasra No.1041/353, is shown as a straight line from point A to A1.
26.2. In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that as per revenue records, the nature of land in Khasra No.1041/353 is recorded as "गैर मुमकिन पहाड़ व आबादी" (non-cultivable hill and abadi). He confirmed the total area as 66 Bighas 18 Biswas but could not specify the division between pahar and abadi. He stated that the record shows the khasra in the name of Sh. Pratap Singh and others but could not state how much area had been transferred to other persons.
Digitally He admitted that he had not brought records of Khasra signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:15 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 14/37
- 15 -
No.1040/353 and had no record of acquisition, which, according to him, would be with the Land Acquisition Collector. He further admitted that he did not personally prepare the records and that no site inspection was conducted prior to mutation entries. He stated that he had only limited knowledge of Urdu. He denied suggestions that the boundary line shown in the Aks-Sajra was incorrect, that he had withheld records, or that he was deposing falsely.
26.3. Overall, PW-3 proved the existence and contents of revenue records, mutation entries, village maps relating to Khasra No.1041/353. He also produced originals of demarcation reports. But his evidence was confined to official records and did not extend to personal knowledge of acquisition, physical possession, or actual demarcation on site.
27. PW-4, Sh. T. Minz, Kanungo from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, was examined to prove the acquisition status of Khasra No.1041/353 from official land acquisition records. He produced the Land Record Register of Village Sadhora Khurd, maintained to reflect acquisition status. As per the register, Khasra No.1041/353 measuring 66 Bighas 18 Biswas stood de-notified under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 01.10.1985 vide de-notification No. F.11(32)/80 L&B dated 01.10.1985. He proved the attested copy of the relevant entry as Ex.PW4/1 (OSR). He further stated that the original de-notification is available with the Land & Building Department. He also stated that, as per Digitally signed by record, Khasra No.1040/353 had been acquired under Award Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:19 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 15/37
- 16 -
No.10.
28. Nothing material came out in his cross examination as he only produced the summoned record qua acquisition and de-
notification. His testimony establishes, from official records, that Khasra No.1041/353 was de-notified from acquisition in 1985 and that Khasra No.1040/353 was acquired, but his evidence is limited to record-based confirmation without personal knowledge of the proceedings.
29. PW-5, Ch. Rajender Singh, a retired Kanungo, was examined to prove the demarcation report dated 28.01.2005 (Ex.PW1/7). He stated that pursuant to directions issued by the Hon'ble Divisional Commissioner on 13.01.2005, he conducted demarcation proceedings in Village Sidhora Khurd. Though the original direction was to demarcate Khasra Nos.1049/356, 1050/356 and 1051/356, he deposed that during the process he also demarcated Khasra Nos.1051/356, 1038/351, 1049/356, 1039/353, 1041/353, 1042/353 and 1037/351. He affirmed that the demarcation report dated 28.01.2005 was prepared by him in his own handwriting, bears his signatures, and is exhibited as Ex.PW1/7. 29.1. He explained that the demarcation began by establishing the north-eastern corner of Khasra No.1039/353 at a point where factory walls existed, and from there measurements of 52 gatthas were taken westward to fix the north-western corner, where the Military Department boundary wall was found in place. He stated that demarcation was conducted with reference Digitally signed by to the village Sajra and field book, and that measurements Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
were taken accordingly. He further stated that no Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:23 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 16/37
- 17 -
objections were raised at the site and that officials present, including those from DDA, signed the report in token of acceptance.
29.2. In cross-examination, PW-5 clarified that the demarcation was initiated on an application of the Military Department and that the specific direction was to demarcate Khasra Nos.1051/356 and 1050/356. He admitted that the written order of direction was not annexed to the report. He also stated that an earlier demarcation dated 18.10.2004 had been conducted by him, against which DDA had raised objections, and that the demarcation dated 28.01.2005 was conducted thereafter; however, the earlier report was not attached to the later one.
29.3. He admitted that copies of notices and proceedings between 18.01.2005 and 28.01.2005 were not annexed with the final report. Though demarcation proceedings spanned several days, the final report was prepared at the site on 28.01.2005. He acknowledged that some portions of the land had constructions such as barracks while others were vacant, but he could not specify from memory which structures fell in which khasra, stating that such details were recorded in the report. 29.4. He admitted that he did not prepare a separate plan and relied upon the military plan and revenue Sajra for conducting demarcation, though copies of those plans were not annexed. He stated that permanent points such as Digitally signed by Burji were considered, though Sehda and Pathar were not Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.02.25 16:58:27 +0530 specifically mentioned. He denied that objections of DDA Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 17/37
- 18 -
were not recorded and maintained that the report was signed without objection. He further stated that although he was not specifically directed to demarcate Khasra Nos.1039/353, 1041/353 or 1040/353, those were demarcated incidentally during the process. 29.5. He denied suggestions that the demarcation was improperly conducted, prepared in office without site inspection, contrary to the Sajra and field book, or forged at the instance of the plaintiff. 29.6. Overall, PW-5 proved the authorship and contents of the demarcation report dated 28.01.2005 and described the procedure followed, while admitting certain procedural omissions such as non-annexing of orders, notices, or plans, and clarifying the limited scope of the original direction for demarcation.
30.PW-6 - Sh. Devender Kumar (Judicial Assistant, Delhi High Court Record Room) produced records of proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. A digital copy of the order dated 24.03.2005 passed in CM(M) 766/2004 titled Pratap Singh vs. DDA, which was exhibited as Ex.PW6/1. He also produced a digital copy of the demarcation report dated 28.01.2005, exhibited as Ex.PW6/2. A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was placed on record as Ex.PW6/3 (OSR). Nothing material came out in his cross examination as he only produced the summoned record.
31. PW-7 - Sh. Amit Chaudhary (Junior Assistant, Lokayukta Department) produced records from the office of the Lokayukta. He brought on record the order dated Digitally signed by Lalit 21.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, exhibited as Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:31 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 18/37
- 19 -
Ex.PW7/1 (OSR), and a copy of the statement of Sh. B.M. Thareja, Deputy Director (LM), West Zone, DDA, exhibited as Ex.PW7/2 (OSR). In cross-examination, he clarified that the complaint before the Lokayukta had been filed by Vijay Kumar, Secretary of "Avedh Nirman and Pradushan Niyantran Sanstha," and not by the present plaintiffs. The complaint dated 01.08.2012 was exhibited as Ex.PW7/D1 (OSR). Nothing material came out in his cross examination as he only produced the summoned record.
32.PW-8 - Sh. Ambika Dutt Sati (Assistant Vigilance Officer, DDA) - produced records of vigilance enquiry proceedings conducted by the Vigilance Department of DDA pursuant to directions of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). He produced and exhibited the report dated 21.07.2010 submitted by the Deputy Director (LM), West Zone as Ex.PW8/1 (OSR), the reply dated 10.08.2010 sent by the Director (Vigilance), DDA to the CVC as Ex.PW8/2 (OSR), and the closure report dated 11.11.2010 issued by the CVC as Ex.PW8/3 (OSR). No cross-examination was conducted despite opportunity. His testimony was likewise formal, confined to placing on record departmental enquiry proceedings and correspondence.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
33. Defendant produced 5 witnesses in support of its defence, as follows:
Sl. No. Purpose
DW-1 Produced record pertaining to land
Digitally
acquisition award
DW-2 Appeared to prove the case of defendant
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25
16:58:35
+0530
Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 19/37
- 20 -
DW-3 Summoned from the Land & Building
Department to produce original land acquisition records.
DW-4 Produced the original possession proceedings dated 20.10.1994 in respect of Khasra No.1040/353 (min).
DW-5 Produced the original Masavi of Village Sadhora Khurd PW-6 Produced record of proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi PW-7 Produced record of proceedings before the Lokayukta PW-8 Produced record from Vigilance department, DDA
34. DW-1 (Sh. Surjan Singh, Office Assistant, LAC) produced the original possession proceedings dated 20.10.1994 relating to Award No.10/94-95 for Village Sadhora Khurd. He pointed out a discrepancy between the copy on court record and the original, and accordingly filed a copy of the original as Ex.DW-1/1. He stated that the original award dated 07.06.1994 concerning Khasra No.1040/353 (min) was not traceable and only a photocopy was available. He also stated that the Aks-Sajra of Khasra No.1040/353 (min) was not maintained in the LAC office. His cross- examination was dispensed with, being a formal witness producing records.
35.DW-2 (Sh. Niraj Kumar Meena, Patwari, DDA) - deposed in line with the WS filed by the defendant, vide his evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that he joined DDA only in 2021 and had no personal knowledge of the acquisition, possession proceedings, or demarcations. He conceded that he had not read the demarcation reports Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:40 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 20/37
- 21 -
before deposing, had not attended any demarcation, and was unaware whether Khasra No.1041/353 was acquired. He could not state the adjoining khasras or dimensions of Khasra No.1040/353 and admitted that his affidavit was based solely on official records. He acknowledged that DDA officials were present during the 2005 demarcation but was unaware of any appeal against it. His evidence is thus largely record-based without personal knowledge.
36.DW-3 (Sh. Deepanshu Khatri, Patwari, Land & Building Department) produced the Land Record (LR) Register of Village Sadhora Khurd and proved relevant entries (Ex.DW- 3/1) showing possession proceedings of Khasra No.1040/353 measuring 12 Bighas 8 Biswas, including bifurcated portions. He also produced photocopies of possession proceedings dated 20.10.1994 and 19.06.1998. He admitted having no personal knowledge of the dispute or the location of the suit land.
37. DW-4 (Sh. Lalit Rana, Patwari, LAC Central) produced the original possession proceedings dated 20.10.1994 (Ex.DW-4/1) and the original plan dated 20.10.1994 relating to Khasra Nos.345 and 1040/353 (Ex.DW-4/2). He stated that the original award was not available, though a copy was marked. In cross-examination, he admitted no personal knowledge of the case and that the documents were not executed in his presence.
38.DW-5 (Sh. Dhiraj Malik, ASO, Record Room) produced the original Masavi (village map) of Village Sadhora Khurd Digitally and proved a certified copy as Ex.DW-5/1. He admitted that signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar he had no personal knowledge of the dispute, had not visited Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:44 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 21/37
- 22 -
the site, and that the document was not prepared in his presence. Nothing material came out in his cross examination as he only produced the summoned record.
39.Overall, the defence witnesses largely acted as formal witnesses producing official acquisition and revenue records. None of them had personal knowledge of the acquisition proceedings, possession, or precise identification of the suit land.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
40. In a gist, the plaintiffs are seeking injunction simpliciter on the basis of claimed settled possession over 9 bigha 2 biswa of Khasra no. 1041/353; whereas the defendant claims that the land falls in acquired khasra no. 1040/353 (min). The main dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant is 'whether the suit land measuring area 9 bigha 2 biswa falls in khasra number 1041/353 (as claimed by plaintiff) or in khasra number 1040/353 (as claimed by defendant DDA)?'. Admittedly, the land in khasra no. 1040/353 is acquired, under possession of defendant DDA and plaintiff has no concern with it; similarly, the land in khasra no. 1041/353 is unacquired and DDA has no concern with khasra no. 1041/353. Thus, the decisive issue is identification of the suit land with precision. The analysis of pleadings and evidence is guided by this narrow point for determination. The onus to prove the identity as well as location of the suit land is on the plaintiffs.
41. Internal contradictions in plaint. - The plaint itself contains Digitally signed by an important contradiction: it repeatedly describes the suit Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.02.25 16:58:48 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 22/37
- 23 -
land as vacant, full of stones, full of pits and uncultivable पहाड़/pahar, while later alleging the presence of an "old structure of four rooms with verandah existing since time immemorial" and in need of repair. This contradiction matters for two reasons. First, it undermines the plaintiffs' case on the claim related to mode and continuity of possession: the PW1 conceded in his cross examination that plaintiffs never cultivated the land and that the land is largely a pahar. Second, the alleged existence of an old structure -- if relied upon as an identifying physical mark of the suit land -- should have been specified in details related to its area and dimensions and supported by independent documentary proof of building and possession (photographs/tax/electricity/water bills, building permissions, tenancy records, etc.). No such civil or municipal records were produced. Even the area and dimensions of the alleged old structure have neither been pleaded in plaint, nor mentioned in the site plan. PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that tenants used to reside in the said old structure earlier and at present, same is occupied by a guard. Despite the said alleged past and present occupation, plaintiffs failed to produce any document to show habitation of the old structure. PW-1 himself admitted the lack of documentary proof and that he could not produce records proving the structure's existence from earlier generations. In short, the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a pucca old structure admissible independent evidence.
41.1. This internal inconsistency in the description of suit land, absence of details and non-availability of documents Digitally signed Lalit byDate:Lalit Kumar Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:53 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 23/37
- 24 -
pertaining to the pucca structure weakens the plaintiffs' claim to a defined, traceable parcel of land identifiable with its pucca structure.
42. Revenue records - Jamabandi with mutation entries and Fard Patwar. -- The plaintiffs have relied upon revenue records (Jamabandi and mutation entries Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW3/8, the mutation copies Ex.PW3/1-PW3/6 and Fard patwar entries Ex.PW3/5 & Ex.PW3/6). These records prima facie establish that the family of the plaintiffs is recorded in the revenue documents as the owner of a broad extent described as Khasra No. 1041/353 (total area 66 bigha 18 biswa). However, as per settled law - mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title; all it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.1 Further, it has also been held that mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.2 42.1. PW-2 and PW-3 corroborated the existence and contents of the Jamabandi, the mutation history and the Aks-Sajra on record. These official entries are admissible and carry respectable evidentiary weight. However, these revenue records do not in themselves identify the suit land precisely (qua dimensions, orientation or boundary lines) Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Date:
constituting the 9 bigha 2 biswa now sued for; nor do Kumar 2026.02.25 16:58:57 they, without anything more, prove exclusive physical +0530 1 Smt. Sawarni vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2823. 2 Jitendra Singh vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 802.
Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 24/37
- 25 -
possession on the ground. The Patwari/PW2 expressly conceded the limitation of revenue records, i.e., they do not necessarily reflect actual current physical possession on the ground. Consequently, the Jamabandi, mutation entries and fard patwar establish the broader recorded ownership of the family in Khasra 1041/353 but do not by themselves identify the particular 9 bigha 2 biswa parcel alleged in the plaint or conclusively prove the possession of plaintiffs.
42.2. On the point of physical possession, it is material to point out that PW-1 admitted existence of "barracks" at the suit land; however, interestingly, he did not explain how military's barracks are present at the suit land. It is the admitted case of plaintiff that adjacent khasra no. 1039/353 belongs to Military - in view of this, the admission regarding presence of military barracks on suit land shows that at least a portion of suit land is also in possession of the Military. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that Military is using the suit land as a lessee or licensee of plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to show exclusive possession of the suit land and from the existence of barracks on the suit land, it also appears that a portion of suit land lies in khasra no. 1039/353, belonging to the Military.
43. Defects in the site plan and its proof. - The site plan filed by the plaintiffs (Ex.PW1/2) is materially defective and was not proved in accordance with law. The material defects Digitally signed by making the site plan unreliable are as follows:
Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar i. The site plan contradicts the plaint in description of Kumar 2026.02.25 16:59:01 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 25/37
- 26 -
suit land - the plaint alleges the suit land is on the southern side of Khasra 1041/353 while the site plan depicts it on the extreme north. This is a material defect in describing the suit land in plaint vis-a-vis depicting the same in the site plan. ii. The plaint or site plan contain no dimensions or length/breadth measurements of the suit land to substantiate the claimed area of 9 bigha 2 biswa. Further, even the area and dimension of alleged "old structure consisting of four rooms with verandah" existing in suit land have also neither been pleaded, nor mentioned in the site plan Ex. PW1/2. iii. Site plan fails to show admitted localities - notably Faridpuri colony, which was admitted by PW-1 to be existing in Khara no.1041/353.
iv. The plaint does not plead existence of a mandir on the suit land, yet the site plan shows one. v. The site plan bears signature and stamp of draughtsman who prepared it. However, the architect/draughtsman - author of the document - was not produced as a witness to prove the same. Such non- production denied the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine him. Thus, the method by which the site plan was prepared - whether from patwari records, site measurements or otherwise remains unproved. Further, PW-1 could not even state with certainty whether the draughtsman consulted the revenue records or if he even visited the site.
Digitally signed by vi. The site plan does not show what lies in south of Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 16:59:05 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 26/37
- 27 -
khasra no. 1041/353.
vii. The site plan does not even mention the distance between the southern boundary of the suit land and the southern boundary of khasra no. 1041/353. viii. The Aks-Sajra on record (Ex.PW3/7 & Ex.PW3/9) demonstrates that Khasra 1041/353 is an irregular quadrilateral (tapering from bottom/south to the top/north), whereas Ex.PW1/2 depicts a rectangular shape; that discrepancy further undermines the plan's reliability. The stark difference in the layout of khasra no. 1041/353 as depicted in the site plan vis-à-vis the aks sajra can be seen from the table below: Layout of Khasra no. Layout of Khasra no. 1041/353 as 1041/353 as per site plan per Aks shizra Ex. PW3/7.
43.1. For these reasons the site plan, Ex.PW1/2, cannot be treated as either accurate or precise in defining or identifying the 9 bigha 2 biswa of suit land; it has not even been proved as per law. Thus, the site plan Ex.PW-
1/2 must be excluded from evidence as it is neither Digitally signed by Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 27/37 Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:17 +0530
- 28 -
admissible, nor reliable.
44. The four demarcation reports -- admissibility and scope.
- PW-1 tendered four demarcation reports (1988, 1996, 1999 and 2005) in his evidence. The original record pertaining to 1988 report was not produced; thus, same remained unproved and inadmissible. The 1996 and 1999 reports were not proved by the officers/kanungo who authored them; even though their original record was produced, but their authors were not produced to prove the contents and methodology used for demarcation; the defendants therefore had no opportunity to test those reports at trial. Consequently, the court cannot place decisive reliance on the 1988, 1996 or 1999 demarcation reports.
44.1. The 2005 demarcation (Ex.PW1/7), however, was duly proved by production of original record as well as its author, PW-5 (Ch. Rajender Singh - kanungo). The High Court record (Ex.PW6/1) also records that the parties before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi accepted the 2005 demarcation in the proceedings then before the Hon'ble Court. Such acceptance before the Hon'ble High Court is a material fact to which both sides are bound in the present proceedings. Further, neither objections were filed to the 2005 demarcation report nor it was challenged before the appropriate revenue/appellate authorities. Thus, the 2005 demarcation report has attained finality. 44.2. However, legal proof of a document is one thing and its evidentiary weight, quite another. Thus, after being proved legally, the nature, extent and limits of the 2005 demarcation are to be examined separately. Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:22 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 28/37
- 29 -
44.3. As per oral evidence of PW-5, as well as the contents of the 2005 demarcation report, the 2005 demarcation proceedings were directed to resolve a particular dispute between the Military department and the DDA, which was instigated on application of the Military Department. PW-
5/Kanungo himself acknowledged that he was formally directed to demarcate only certain khasra bearing numbers
- 1049/356, 1050/356, 1051/356. He stated that other khasras (including the south-east corner of 1041/353) were demarcated only incidentally in that process. 44.4. The 2005 report identifies only the following corner points and their adjoining boundaries:
i. north-west corner, south-west corner, south- east corner of khasra nos. 1038/351, ii. north-east corner of khasra no. 1051/356, iii. four boundaries of khasra no. 1049/356, iv. north-east, north-west corners of khasra no.
1039/353, v. south-east corner of khasra no. 1041/353, vi. 1042 (only south-west corner), vii. 1037/351 (north-west corner), and viii. boundaries of khasra no. 1049/356, 1050/356 and 1051/356.
44.5. The 2005 demarcation report does not represent a complete step-by-step survey of entire Khasra 1041/353 nor does it purport to demarcate the particular contiguous parcel of land measuring 9 bigha 2 biswa, which is under contest in the present suit. The 2005 report contains no map annexed to the report and no precise plan showing either the khasras demarcated or the suit land. Moreover, PW-5 admitted that the demarcation work relied upon Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:27 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 29/37
- 30 -
military and revenue plans which were not annexed to the report and that he did not prepare a separate plan of khasras demarcated.
44.6. The report finally concludes that the land falling under 1040/353, whose possession was given to DDA as per possession proceedings of 20.10.1994 - a part of it, i.e., 9x52 gatthha (गट्ठा) - falls in khasra no. 1039/353, which belongs to military and said possession was wrongly given to DDA; said area is built up and its khasra number is 1040/353; concerned department were directed to correct the records; demarcation was accepted by the officials of military and DDA - and bears signatures of all the participants.
44.7. From the abovementioned contents of 2005 demarcation report and the testimony of PW-5, it is clear that -
i. this report does not pertain to dispute between the plaintiffs and DDA;
ii. demarcation proceedings were not undertaken to resolve the dispute qua identity or location of suit land in the present case;
iii. there were no directions for the Kanungo to demarcate either khasra no. 1041/353 or the 9 bigha 2 biswa of suit land;
iv. plaintiffs or their representative was not present during the demarcation proceedings; v. even in absence of specific directions to the Kanungo, neither the khasra no. 1041/353 was demarcated in its entirety (only south-east corner was Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:31 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 30/37
- 31 -
identified), nor the 9 bigha 2 biswa of suit land was specifically demarcated;
vi. the report does not say anything regarding who was found to be in physical possession of khasra no. 1041/353.
vii. the report does not mention anything regarding an "old structure" or "mandir" in khasra no. 1041/353. 44.8. In short, the 2005 demarcation report is limited in scope and its findings are immaterial for the purpose of present case. It is evidence of certain corner points of certain khasra numbers which were subject of inter-se dispute of DDA and Military department; however, it does not say anything on the identification of suit land whose location is in dispute between plaintiffs and DDA. The 2005 report does not identify the suit land with the accuracy and precision required for a decree of permanent injunction.
44.9. Even though the 1996 and 1999 demarcation reports have not been proved as per law, but still, if the court were to consider the 1996 and 1999 demarcations on their face, those reports too only identify corner points and the boundaries of adjacent numbers - 1039/353, 1040/353, 1041/353 and 1042/353. None of these reports specifically identify/demarcate the 9 bigha 2 biswa of suit land allegedly falling in khasra no. 1041/353; nor do they mention anything regarding an old structure or mandir in khasra no. 1041/353, as alleged to be existing by the plaintiffs. Thus, even these reports neither give conclusive Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar finding nor any hint regarding whether the suit land falls Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:36 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 31/37
- 32 -
in khasra no. 1041/353 (as alleged by plaintiffs) or 1040/353 (as alleged by defendant).
45. Onus and the plaintiffs' burden of proof. - It is a bedrock principle that a plaintiff seeking equitable relief such as a permanent injunction must plead and prove the right it seeks to enforce and must identify the subject-matter with sufficient precision to permit enforcement. It is also trite that plaintiff's case should stand on its own legs, and plaintiff cannot take benefit of weakness or even absence of defense. 45.1. The plaintiffs bore the initial burden to identify the suit land and to prove that the 9 bigha 2 biswa they claim falls within Khasra No. 1041/353. The plaintiffs relied on revenue records (Jamabandi, mutations, fard patwar), series of demarcation reports, and on the site plan -- but, for the reasons just explained above, these materials either do not identify the suit parcel with requisite certainty (revenue records being general records for fiscal purpose), are defective and unproved (the site plan & 1988, 1996 and 1999 demarcations), or are limited in scope and findings(the 2005 demarcation). The plaintiffs therefore failed to satisfy the primary evidential burden of establishing the identity and location of the specific parcel of land sued for.
46. Further, in light of admission regarding existence of military barracks on the suit land, plaintiffs have also failed to prove exclusive possession of the suit land and it appears that a portion of suit land lies in khasra no. 1039/353, belonging to the Military.
Digitally signed by
47. Rest of the documents filed and summoned by the plaintiffs Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.02.25 17:00:40 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 32/37
- 33 -
do not establish the identity or location of the suit land. Thus, same do not help the case of the plaintiffs in any manner and need not be discussed in detail.
48. Consequence -- unidentifiable subject-matter and injunctive relief. - Because the plaintiffs have not proved, on admissible evidence, that the 9 bigha 2 biswa parcel of land sued for is a defined part of Khasra No. 1041/353, the subject- matter for which equitable protection is sought remains unidentifiable. It is elementary that a court cannot grant an injunction to protect an unidentifiable immovable property. In such case, the defendant was not expected to rebut the case of plaintiffs with its own defense evidence. The plaintiffs cannot take refuge in the defendant's weaknesses; the plaintiffs' cause must stand on the strength of their own proved case. In the absence of a proved, precise map/site plan or admissible demarcation that clearly identifies the suit land, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.
49. DDA's records on acquisition and possession. - The defendant produced possession proceedings and copies of the Award and possession entries (documents produced by DW-1, DW-3 & DW-4) to show that portion(s) of Khasra 1040/353 were acquired and taken into DDA possession in 1994 and in 1998. Those records and the witnesses who produced them were largely formal witnesses; the documentary record supports DDA's case that 1040/353 has been the subject of acquisition and that at least 9 bigha (and later 3 bigha 8 biswa) were recorded as handed to DDA. DW-2 (Patwari for DDA) corroborated the existence of those acquisition and Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar possession entries. The documentary record of acquisition and Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:44 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 33/37
- 34 -
possession therefore stands on its face as departmental record. However, except for oral testimony of DW-2, the defendant has also not produced any positive evidence to show that the suit land falls in acquired khasra no. 1040/353. The location of suit land cannot be proved merely on the basis of oral evidence.
50. Summing up -
a. the revenue records prove that the plaintiffs' family is recorded in Khasra 1041/353 (66 bigha 18 biswa) -- that general fact is not disputed; b. the DDA's departmental records prove acquisition of Khasra 1040/353 and possession over significant portions thereof; c. the plaintiffs' site plan is unreliable and unproved;
d. the earlier demarcations (1988, 1996, 1999) were not proved in court by their authors; e. the 2005 demarcation is proved and accepted, but it is limited in its scope and findings - it does not identify the 9 bigha 2 biswa parcel for the purposes of a grant of injunction; and f. therefore, the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden of identifying the suit land with the precision required for a decree of permanent injunction.
g. plaintiffs have also failed to prove exclusive possession of the suit land and it appears that a portion of suit land lies in khasra no. 1039/353, Digitally belonging to the Military.
signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:49 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 34/37
- 35 -
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
51. In view of above analysis, the issue-wise findings are as follows:
52. Issue no.1 - "Whether the plaintiffs are co-owner in possession of land bearing Khasra No.1041/353 situated in the village and revenue estate of Sidora Khurd? OPP." - is answered in negative. Plaintiffs proved recorded ownership and mutation of Khasra No.1041/353 (66 bigha 18 biswa) but did not prove settled, exclusive, identifiable possession of the specific 9 bigha 2 biswa parcel. PW-1 admitted lack of cultivation and absence of municipal records for the alleged old structure; revenue records neither establish exclusive physical possession nor title to the land. Thus, revenue records, by themselves, do not establish possession or title over the suit land sufficient for the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, though plaintiffs hold recorded rights in the wider khasra, they failed to establish the necessary physical identification and possession of the particular parcel sued for. Lastly, in light of admission regarding existence of military barracks on the suit land, plaintiffs have also failed to prove exclusive possession of the suit land and it appears that a portion of suit land lies in khasra no. 1039/353, belonging to the Military.
53. Issue no. 2 - "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP." - is also answered in negative. Plaintiffs have not established the fundamental requirement for a permanent injunction --
settled and exclusive physical possession in respect of a Digitally specifically identified immovable piece of land coupled with signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:54 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 35/37
- 36 -
proof of threatened or continuing wrongful interference. As explained earlier, the plaintiffs are not in exclusive physical possession of suit land; and suit land itself is not proved with requisite certainty and the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their primary burden. The injunction must therefore be refused.
54. Issue no. 3 - "Whether the suit land forms part of Kh.
No.1040/353 placed at disposal of DDA as stated in the written statement? OPD" is also answered in negative. Defendant has not led any specific evidence to prove that the suit land falls in acquired khasra no. 1040/353.
55. Issue no. 4 - "Whether the suit is barred for want of statutory notice U/s 53B of DD Act? OPD" is also answered in negative. Even though the plaintiff has failed to prove service of mandatory statutory notice u/s. 53B, DD Act, the case of plaintiffs appears to be covered by exception created in S.53B (3), DD Act, which provides that "(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." Further, in any case, after more than 30 years of contesting on merits, it is better that the dispute between the parties be decided on the basis of pleadings and evidences and dismissal of suit on the mere ground of non-service of notice is not justifiable.3 CONCLUSION
56. Accordingly, on documentary analysis, the plaintiffs' claim 3 See Khosla Medical Institute v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr., Digitally signed by NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005237 Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 17:00:59 +0530 Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 36/37
- 37 -
for a permanent injunction must fail for want of proof exclusive physical possess as well as the identity and precise location of the 9 bigha 2 biswa parcel alleged to fall within Khasra No. 1041/353.
RELIEF
57. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed. The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed on merits with cost.
COST
58. The suit having been dismissed, the plaintiffs must pay costs to the defendant. Costs are assessed at Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-
five thousand only) to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant within 30 days from the date of judgment. If payment is not made within that period, the defendant may take steps to recover the same in accordance with law.
59.The interim orders (if any) passed in this suit shall stand vacated.
60. Decree sheet to be prepared accordingly.
61.File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.02.25 (This judgment contains 37 pages 17:01:06 +0530 and each page has been signed by the undersigned) (LALIT KUMAR) Announced in the open Court on Civil Judge-02, West, 24.02.2026 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Suit No. 6981/2016 Pratap Singh & Ors. v. DDA 37/37