Delhi District Court
Sh. Samay Singh vs Dda on 5 December, 2025
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS)
SUIT No. 612472/2016
CNR No. DLWT03-000046-2000
In The Matter Of:
1) Samay Singh (deceased)
Through LRs:
i. Smt. Viro,
W/o Late Sh. Samay Singh
R/o H.No. 114/58, Village Shakurpur,
Delhi - 110034
2) Surat Singh (deceased)
Through LRs:
i. Sh. Bhagat Singh
S/o Late Sh. Surat Singh
R/o WZ-114/58, Village Shakurpur,
Delhi - 110034
ii. Sh. Mukesh Yadav
W/o Sh. Satish Yadav
R/o H.No.542, Second Floor,
Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 1/31 Digitally
signed by
Lalit
Lalit Kumar
Kumar Date:
2025.12.06
16:18:20
+0530
- 2 -
Gali No.1, Sree Nagar,
Delhi - 110034
iii. Smt. Leela Wati @ Archana
W/o Shri Injderjeet Yadav,
R/o Kale Aam Chowk, Police Line
Bulandshahr, U.P.
iv. Smt. Poonam Yadav
W/o Shri Surendra Yadav
R/o F-20A, Gali No.7, Brahmpuri,
Shahdara, Delhi-110053
v. Smt. Durga Devi Yadav
W/o Shri Rajesh Yadav
R/o H.No.15, Shakti Park,
Gali No.1, Near Anaj Mandi,
Gurgon (Haryana)
vi. Smt. Anjali Yadav
W/o Shri Anil Yadav
R/o B-2/114, IIIrd Floor,
Sector-16, Rohini,
Delhi-110085
..........................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 2/31
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06
16:18:26
+0530
- 3 -
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi
...........................DEFENDANT
Suit filed on :- 07.06.2000
Judgment Reserved on :- 19.09.2025
Date of decision :- 05.12.2025
Decision :- DISMISSED
INDEX
Pleadings of the plaintiffs.............................................................. 4
Pleadings of Defendants ................................................................ 6
Issues ............................................................................................. 8
Plaintiffs' Evidence ....................................................................... 9
Defendant's Evidence.................................................................. 13
Analysis and Reasoning .............................................................. 17
Site plan - Ex. PW9/1............................................................... 19
Land acquisition proceedings proved ...................................... 19
Plaintiffs' long possession ........................................................ 21
Tatima (map) not produced ...................................................... 21
Plaintiffs' reliance on RTI reply ............................................... 21
List of built-up properties excluded from possession
proceedings .............................................................................. 22
Issue-wise Findings ..................................................................... 23
Conclusion................................................................................... 30
Relief ........................................................................................... 30
Cost.............................................................................................. 30
Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 3/31
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Kumar
Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06
16:18:37
+0530
- 4 -
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant. Before adjudicating upon 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, Shri Samay Singh and Shri Surat Singh, instituted the present suit against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking a decree for permanent injunction. They are the sons and legal heirs of one late Sh. Hari Singh and claim to be the joint owners in possession of the suit property, being a residential house built upon a plot of land measuring 600 sq. yds., bearing Municipal No. WZ-114/58, situated within the Lal Dora and Abadi of Village Shakurpur, Delhi (referred to as "suit property" hereinafter).
2. It is averred that a registered sale deed dated 19.12.1946, was executed by the original owner, late Sri Ram, in favour of their father, late Hari Singh, and one late Ram Kishan; that although the area of the plot was inadvertently omitted from this deed, the identity of the plot has always been the same. It is further averred that late Hari Singh constructed a house on the plot in 1961 and remained in continuous possession. That upon the death of Ram Kishan, his son Mohinder Singh initially held a share in the property, but pursuant to an oral family settlement, Mohinder Singh was assigned other Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 4/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:18:42 +0530
- 5 -
property in lieu of his share, leaving late Hari Singh the sole and absolute owner thereof. Following the death of Hari Singh on 21st May 1999, the plaintiffs, as his only legal heirs, inherited the suit property and are now in joint possession.
3. The core of the dispute revolves around the identity of the suit property in relation to land acquired by the government. It is averred that the plaintiffs initially believed that their property was part of Khasra No. 30/26/1 of Village Shakurpur, which was acquired vide Award No. 2112 dated 24th June 1968, but was left out of acquisition as a "built-up area" under a policy decision. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the defendant-DDA. It is averred that the DDA's reply, dated 16th April 2010, disclosed that the entire land measuring 20 Bigha 5 Biswa of the said Khasra had been utilized and possession was handed over to various agencies. Based on this information, the plaintiffs amended their case and categorically pleaded that the suit property is not, and never was, a part of Khasra No. 30/26/1. They assert that it is a separate and distinct property, situated entirely within the Lal Dora, and that the DDA consequently has no right, title, or interest whatsoever in it.
4. The plaintiffs allege a continuing threat of demolition from the defendant. It is averred that a previous suit, being Suit No. 170 of 1989, was filed by Hari Singh (plaintiff's father) and Mohinder Singh against the DDA for a similar injunction, which was ultimately dismissed in default on 31st May 2000. In the present suit, the plaintiffs complied with the statutory Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 5/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:18:48 +0530
- 6 -
requirement by serving a notice upon the DDA under Section 53-B of the DDA Act on 11th September 1999, which went unanswered.
5. It is averred that on 2nd June 2000, just after the dismissal of the earlier suit, officials of the DDA visited the property and threatened to demolish it.
6. Accordingly, the plaintiffs pray for a permanent injunction restraining DDA from demolishing the suit property or interfering with their possession, along with the costs of the suit.
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS
7. In its Written Statement, the defendant/DDA has categorically opposed the suit and sought its dismissal with costs. It is averred that the suit property bearing No. WZ-114/58, is not located within the Abadi deh or Lal Dora of Village Shakurpur as claimed by the plaintiffs, but instead forms a part of Khasra No. 30/26/1 min, which was duly acquired by the government vide Award No. 2112.
8. The defendant raised several preliminary objections challenging the very maintainability of the suit. It contended that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit as the land, having been acquired, is now vested in and placed at the disposal of the DDA; that the present suit is an indirect challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the Award, over which the Civil Court has no jurisdiction; invoking the principle of res judicata, it is averred that a previous suit (Suit No. 170/1989) involving the same property and cause of Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 6/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:18:54 +0530
- 7 -
action, filed by the plaintiffs' father, was dismissed on 31st May, 2000. Further objections include the assertion that any sale or transfer of the acquired land is null and void ab initio, that the suit is bad for want of a proper notice under Section 53-B of the DDA Act, and that the suit is not properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction.
9. On merits, it is averred that the entire land measuring 20 Bighas and 05 Biswas in Khasra No. 30/26/1 min was acquired vide award no. 2112; physical possession of 20 Bighas and 01 Biswa was taken over by the DDA under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, thereby vesting the land absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances, while possession of the remaining 04 Biswas was not taken due to built-up structures. A portion of this acquired land, measuring 14 Bighas 18 Biswas, was placed at the disposal of the DDA for development vide a notification dated 03.06.1972 under Section 22(1) of the DDA Act. The DDA further clarifies that the remaining 05 Bighas and 03 Biswas was originally Gaon Sabha land, which vested in the Central Government upon the urbanization of Village Shakurpur and was subsequently placed at the DDA's disposal vide a general notification dated 20.08.1974. Consequently, DDA asserts that the entire khasra is now under its control and the plaintiffs are merely encroachers on government land with no lawful right, title, or interest.
10. DDA specifically rebuts the plaintiffs' reliance on the RTI response, pointing out that the application was filed by only one plaintiff and that the information was supplied by the Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 7/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:18:59 +0530
- 8 -
Land & Building Department, not the DDA, and represents only limited information.
11.On merits, the defendant denies all substantive averments made in the plaint, including the plaintiffs' claims of ownership, the existence of the property within the Lal Dora, and the assertion of having a cause of action. DDA reiterates that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the injunction as it would effectively negate the acquisition process. Accordingly, it prays for dismissal of the suit with heavy costs.
ISSUES
12. Based on the pleadings of both the sides, initially, issues were framed on 15.01.2008 and subsequently, after amended pleadings were filed, additional issues 1a and 1b were framed on 25.01.2012, as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 1a. Whether the suit property falls in khasra no.
30/26/1 of village Shakurpur which is acquired and placed at the disposal of defendant/DDA as is alleged by the defendant? OPD.
1b. Whether the suit property does not form part of the acquired land of khasra no. 30/26/1? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice U/s. 53B of DD Act? OPD
3. Whether the suit has not been property valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 8/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:19:05 +0530
- 9 -
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.
PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE
13. The plaintiffs expired before their evidence could be recorded during trial. Their legal representatives were substituted. In plaintiffs' evidence, several witnesses and records were summoned. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff side are as follows:
i. Registered Sale Deed dated 19.12.1946 in favour of late Hari Singh and late Ram Kishan - Ex. PW9/A - tendered by PW9, Bhagat Singh (LR no. (i) of deceased plaintiff no.2). The original sale deed is in Urdu. Its Hindi translation was placed on record by the plaintiffs; however, same was not been tendered in evidence. The said sale deed does not mention the area of the plot (admitted by plaintiffs in their plaint).
ii. Site plan prepared by R.S. Yadav & Associates showing the built house and plot, marked in red -- Ex. PW9/1.
iii. Utility documents -- electricity bills, water bills, telephone connection and ration card linking the family of plaintiffs to the suit property (Ex. PW9/5-PW9/8).
iv. Land acquisition proceedings:
a. Award No.2112 - Ex. PW5/1 and Ex. PW-5/D2 (OSR) Digitally Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 9/31 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.06 16:19:10 +0530
- 10 -
b. kabza-karwai (possession proceedings) - PW5/3 & PW5/D1 (OSR) c. List of built-up properties whose possession was not taken - Ex. PW5/2 or Ex.PW-9/10 d. Official report dated 05.02.1970 qua kabza karwai - Ex. PW5/4 e. Report of Naib Tehsildar regarding non- availability of tatima of khasra no.30/26 - PW5/5.
v. Official report dated 05.02.1970 (Ex. PW5/4 / Ex.
PW9/9A) and list of built-up properties which, plaintiffs contend, recorded that certain built-up properties were left out of physical taking of possession.
vi. RTI application and reply -- Ex. PW2/1 (RTI application copy), Ex. PW2/2 (reply dated 16.04.2010) produced through PW-2 (D.P. Yadav, UDC L&B Dept.). Similarly, an RTI response (Ex. PW9/16) was produced indicating distribution/allotment details for the acquired land.
vii. Notice dated 11.09.1999 under Section 53-B (Ex.
PW9/17), postal receipt and AD card (Ex. PW9/18 & PW9/19).
viii. Certified copy of judgment and decree in an earlier suit [filed against Municipal Corporation of Delhi Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 10/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:19:15 +0530
- 11 -
(MCD)] in favour of the father of plaintiffs (Ex. PW9/3 & PW9/4) -- produced to show long possession.
ix. Policy letter / planning documents -- Policy letter No. J-13037/113/74/UDI/118 dated 16.02.1977 produced as Ex. PW6/1 (produced by PW-6).
x. Development plan of Village Shakurpur (photocopy Mark X) -- produced by PW7/PW17 as available in DDA records / MCD files. Photocopy of notification of 22.06.1987 (de-notification transfer to MCD) marked Mark Y. xi. Site inspection - Report prepared by Halka Patwari (Ex. PW11/A) recording inspection results.
14. The following relevant witnesses were produced/appeared in plaintiffs' evidence:
i. PW2 - Sh. D.P. Yadav (UDC, L&B Department):
Produced the RTI reply (Ex. PW2/2) and the photocopy of RTI application (Ex. PW2/1). PW2 stated the original RTI application file was not traceable in his branch and was obtained from PIO. He conceded lack of personal knowledge of the underlying facts and that the original Ex. PW2/1 was not issued during his tenure.
ii. PW5 -- Sh. Amit Kumar (Patwari, O/o Land Acquisition Collector): Produced award file, possession proceedings dated 31.07.1968 (Ex. PW5/D1) and list of built-up properties prepared on 06.04.1974 (Ex. PW5/6). Testified that the award covered Khasra No.30/26/1 measuring 20 bigha 5 biswas; possession of certain built-
Digitally Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 11/31 signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:19:22 +0530
- 12 -
up properties was not taken over; the report of 05.02.1970 is on record (Ex. PW5/4). He deposed that tatima and original list of built-up properties was not available in the file produced. However, he explained that list of built-up properties (Ex. PW5/6) placed on record was a certified copy.
iii. PW6 -- Sh. Chellappan Venkataraman (Assistant, Delhi Division, Ministry of Urban Development): Produced Policy Letter No. J-13037/113/74/UDI/118 dated 16.02.1977 (Ex. PW6/1).
iv. PW7 & PW17 -- Sh. Sanjay Kujur / Sh. Sanjay Kujur (Assistant Director, Planning, DDA): Produced photocopy of the Development Plan of Village Shakurpur (Mark X) and the copy of notification dated 22.06.1987 (Mark Y) documenting transfer/denotification to MCD. PW7/17 stated originals were transferred to MCD. Mark X and Mark Y remained unproved documents.
v. PW9 -- Sh. Bhagat Singh (LR, son of deceased plaintiff no.2 and sole witness from plaintiffs' family): He produced the 1946 sale deed (Ex. PW-9/A), site plan (Ex. PW-9/1), death certificates (Ex. PW-9/2, PW-9/20), earlier judgment/decree (Ex. PW-9/3, Ex. PW-9/4), RTI receipt and reply (Ex. PW-9/14 - PW-9/16), list of built- up properties (Ex. PW-9/10), notice under Section 53-B (Ex. PW-9/17) and utility bills (Ex. PW-9/5 - PW-9/8). PW-9 testified that the house was constructed in 1961, occupation continued, and that the built-up area was left out in award/kabza proceedings. In cross-examination, Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 12/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:19:27 +0530
- 13 -
PW9 admitted: (i) he was not sure of the precise khasra number where his house falls; (ii) he had no Lal Dora certificate; (iii) the 1946 deed does not mention area; (iv) lack of personal knowledge about other suits and litigation particulars. PW-9 accepted that site plan does not show khasra boundaries.
vi. PW11 -- Sh. Satish Kumar (Bailiff, SDM office):
Produced status report prepared by Halka Patwari after site (suit property) inspection (Ex. PW11/A). He identified the patwari's signature and stated the report was made after visiting the suit property. During cross, he admitted the report bore the patwari's signatures and he accompanied the patwari on oral directions.
vii. PW12-PW18 (various officials): Several officials from Land & Building Department, SDM office and DDA - produced statements indicating certain summoned records and tatima were not traceable in their branch or were held in other branch offices; some attested that records were not available. Ex.PW15/A and similar letters recorded non-availability of summoned record.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
15. The defendant examined two witnesses and produced certain official documents, as follows:
i. Notification under Section 22(1) of D.D. Act dated 03.06.1972 -- Ex. DW-1/1. This notification purportedly places 14 bigha 18 biswas out of Khasra No.30/26/1 at the disposal of DDA for development.
Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 13/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:19:31 +0530
- 14 -
ii. Award No.2112 (Village Shakurpur) -- Ex. DW-1/2 (OSR)
-- showing acquisition of Khasra No.30/26/1 measuring 20 bigha 5 biswas.
iii. Aks Part Sizra of Mauza Shakurpur -- Ex. DW-1/3 (OSR).
iv. Possession proceedings / Kabza Karyawahi -- Ex. DW-
1/4 & Ex. DW-2/1 (OSR). Translation of the same document is Ex. DW1/5, recording that possession of 20 bigha 1 biswa was taken on 31.07.1968 and that 0-4 biswa remained at the time due to built-up structures.
16.DW-1 - Sh. Sumit Singal (Patwari / LM / North Zone, DDA) deposed through an evidence affidavit (Ex. DW-1/A) and reiterated the contents of the written statement of defendant. During cross examination, DW-1 acknowledged that Hindi translation (Ex.DW-1/5) of Ex.DW-2/1 (Possession proceedings/Kabza Karyawahi) was incomplete. He admitted that Ex. DW-2/1 does not show the suit property fully, and that he has no precise tatima or demarcation showing exact location of the plaintiffs' plot within or outside the acquired area. He admitted visiting the suit property (in January and February, 2020) but did not make a formal written report; that no address of site was mentioned; that visitor/outdoor register did not have any stamp, designation or name of the official; that he did not make or record measurements of the suit property during his visits. He deposed that he had no knowledge whether the development plan separately shows Village Abadi and government land for public utility; that he could not tell north, east, west, south directions of the acquired land without seeing the tatima, and that the tatima is Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 14/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.06 16:19:37 +0530
- 15 -
kept in the Land Record Cell of DDA; he could not produce tatima despite direction of the Court and stated that it was not available. DW-1 acknowledged that the suit property is situated in a thickly built-up area and that sewage, electricity and other amenities were provided by government agencies to the suit land and adjoining area. He also admitted that DDA did not reply to the legal notice dated 11.09.1999 served by the plaintiffs.
17.DW-2 - Sh. Parvesh Singh Lakra (Data Operator, office of District Magistrate, North-West, Kanjhawala) - DW-2 produced the original possession proceedings of Award No.2112 and same is Ex. DW-2/1 (OSR). In cross- examination DW-2 admitted he did not know Urdu and could not be certain there were no overwriting or corrections in the Urdu documents; admitted that there is no site plan in respect to the possession taken over, in the file; that he did not know what tatima was or whether tatima was available in the file.
18. In its evidence, DDA established existence of Award No.2112 and possession proceedings dated 31.07.1968 on record (Ex. DW-1/2, Ex. DW-2/1). Further, notifications under Section 22(1) were produced and relied upon to establish vesting of land of village Shakurpur with DDA (Ex. DW-1/1).
19.The cross-examination of DW-1 to the effect that Ex.DW-2/1 (possession proceedings) and its hindi translation (Ex. DW- 1/5) being incomplete documents does not help the case of the plaintiff - since copies of the complete possession proceedings in Urdu and its English translation were initially filed on record by the original plaintiffs themselves, at the Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 15/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.06 16:19:42 +0530
- 16 -
time of filing the suit. These documents were not tendered in evidence by PW-9 (sole witness to appear from the families of original plaintiffs) for reasons best known to plaintiff side.
20. The substance of English translation (not tendered in evidence) of possession proceedings, when compared with the hindi translation (placed on record by DW-1 as Ex.DW-1/5 and admitted to be incomplete) is same, as given below:-
i. as per the possession proceedings, possession of 20 bigha, 1 biswa of Khasra no.30/26/1 was taken;
ii. that possession of total 11 bigha 3 biswa was not taken since there were tubewells & electric fittings (in area of 12 biswa) and built up houses (in area of 10 bigha 11 biswa) and people were residing therein;
iii. that 0 bigha 4 biswa of Khasra no. 30/26/1 was also part of 10 bigha 11 biswa built up area, of which possession was not taken.
21. The documents pertaining to the (1) land acquisition Award No.2112 (Village Shakurpur), (2) the possession proceedings/Kabza Karyawahi, and (3) the list of excluded built up properties prepared at the time of possession proceedings - all pertain to the year 1968 and these documents have been duly proved as per the evidence led by both the sides. Further, the certified copies of notifications such as - (1) gazette notification under Section 22(i) of D.D. Act dated 03.06.1972 (Ex. DW-1/1 & Ex. PW-9/12), (2) gazette notification under S. 507(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 dated 23rd May, 1963 regarding Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 16/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:19:46 +0530
- 17 -
urbanization of village Shakurpur (where suit property lies) and (3) notification dated 20th August, 1974 under S.22(i) of DD Act regarding placing land of entire village Shakurpur at disposal of DDA - have also been placed on record. Any challenge to the contents of the documents pertaining to land acquisition and gazette notifications cannot be entertained by this court. Further, any oral evidence regarding the contents of the land acquisition documents is also liable to be rejected since, firstly, these documents attained finality long before institution of present suit (in 2000) and secondly, all the witnesses in the present case (except PW-9) are official witnesses; they testified as per the record/file available in the department and not as per their personal knowledge of the land acquisition award & possession proceedings.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING
22. Based on the factual matrix, following questions arise in the present suit:
i. Whether the suit property is part of the acquired Khasra no.30/26/1 or lies outside it (as part of Lal dora/abadi deh land and therefore left out of acquisition)?
ii. Whether the list of built-up properties (left out of possession proceedings) includes suit property?
23. In a suit pertaining to immovable property, the plaintiff must prove location and identification of the property, his title or entitlement, and that the interference by defendant is unlawful and needs prevention. It is trite that the plaintiff must stand on his own legs and prove his right, possession or Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 17/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:19:51 +0530
- 18 -
entitlement to the property; even if the defendant has no defense or weak defense, that alone does not entitle the plaintiff to a decree. Further, the initial burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to substantiate his cause, if he fails to discharge the same, the weakness in the defense cannot be the basis to grant relief to the plaintiffs and burden cannot be shifted on the defendant.1
24.In the present case, the plaintiffs claim that main cause of action arose on 02.06.2000 when the officials of defendant threatened to demolish the suit property alleging that the suit property lies in acquired land. Therefore, from the inception, the plaintiff was aware that the defendant is claiming title over the land where suit property is located.
25.Therefore, in the present case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove their title over suit property and ergo, the entitlement to the relief of permanent injunction against a public authority (DDA) asserting ownership by acquisition. As abovementioned, no challenge can be entertained against the land acquisition and possession proceedings. Thus, where the defence is acquisition by a state authority and the documents pertaining to acquisition have been proved, the plaintiffs must produce cogent and specific evidence to show that their portion of land was excluded from acquisition.
26.Therefore, the scope of plaintiff's case is limited to prove either exclusion of suit property from the land acquisition/possession proceedings or that the suit property 1 Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar, (2020) 7 SCC 275.
Digitally Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 18/31 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.06 16:19:56 +0530
- 19 -
does not fall in the acquired land and falls in Lal dora/abadi deh. In these facts and circumstances, it was for the plaintiff to prove by producing cogent and specific evidence to show that suit property was either excluded from possession proceedings or that the suit property lies in Lal dora/abadi deh land, which was never acquired.
27. Site plan - Ex. PW9/1 - is neither to scale nor mentions any khasra number nor shows any khasra boundaries. The draughtsman, who is the author of the document, was not produced as a witness to prove Ex.PW9/1. Ex.PW9/1 neither supports the case of the plaintiffs regarding the location of the suit property, nor can be considered as a piece of evidence since non production of the draughtsman deprived the defendant of its right to cross-examine the witness on its preparation and correctness. Thus, the site plan, Ex.PW9/1, was neither proved as per law, nor provides the location of the suit property vis-à-vis Khasra no. 30/26/1.
28. Land acquisition proceedings proved - The defendant/DDA has proved documents related to land acquisition and vested with DDA, i.e., - Award No.2112 relating to Khasra No.30/26/1 (20 bigha 5 biswas); possession proceedings dated 31.07.1968 indicating that physical possession of 20 bigha 1 biswa was taken and 0-4 biswa remained due to built-up structures; Notifications under Section 22(1) of the D.D. Act (dated 03.06.1972 and 20.08.1974) indicating vesting/placing of acquired land and entire land of Village Shakurpur at DDA's disposal.
Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 19/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.06 16:20:01 +0530
- 20 -
28.1. Overall, DDA proved the acquisition proceedings and that land in the relevant khasra no. 30/26/1 was acquired and placed at disposal of DDA. DDA did not produce the tatima that would conclusively show boundaries of acquired and possessed land vis-à-vis the plaintiffs' plot.
Witnesses summoned by the plaintiffs and defendant deposed that the tatima was not available in the official records.
28.2. However, an Aks part shizra of Mauza Shakurpur was placed on record and proved as Ex. DW-1/3 (OSR), which shows that the suit land is located within the acquired khasra no. 30/26/1. This is the only document placed on record by either party showing location of suit property vis-à-vis khasra no. 30/26/1. Ex. DW-1/3 shows that suit land is located within khasra no. 30/26/1. Only bare suggestions were given to DW-1 during his cross- examination regarding the aks part shizra, i.e., the aks shizra has not been proved as per plan and that the "suit land has been not shown in the said shizra by its dimensions". DW-1 denied both the suggestions. Further, the DW-1 neither confirmed, nor denied the question that "the shizra Ex.DW-1/3 filed by DDA is not in respect of the suit land and the same is false". No other question was put to DW-1 regarding Ex. DW-1/3. No other documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiffs to disprove the location of suit property shown in Ex. DW- 1/3. Thus, the aks part shizra of Mauza Shakurpur, Ex. DW-1/3, remained unimpeached and duly proved.
Digitally signed by Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 20/31 Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:20:06 +0530
- 21 -
28.3. Accordingly, it is concluded that DDA has proved the location of suit property as falling in Khasra no. 30/26/1.
29. Plaintiffs' long possession - By way of their evidence, the plaintiffs have proved long continued actual possession of the suit property through various documents -- ration card of plaintiffs' father (Ex. PW-9/8), electricity bill (Ex. PW9/5), water bill (Ex.PW-9/7) and telephone bill (Ex.PW-9/6), and an earlier decree in favour of their father in a suit involving MCD (Exs.PW9/3 & PW9/4). These documents support assertion of longstanding occupation of plaintiffs and their father.
30. Tatima (map) not produced - Multiple official witnesses such as PW-5, DW-1 - stated that tatima (map) of khasra nos.
30/26, 30/26/1 and 30/26/2 of village Shakurpur prepared at the time of taking of possession of acquired land, was not available in the award file. Thus, the tatima was not produced in evidence by either side. This is a material feature of the present case and weakens the claims of both sides with respect to the precise boundaries of acquired and unacquired land.
31. Plaintiffs' reliance on RTI reply - Plaintiffs have heavily relied on the RTI reply (Ex. PW-2/2), which states two things, as follows:
i. Land measuring 20 Bigha 5 Biswa of Kh. No. 30/26/1 of village Shakurpur has been acquired vide Award No. 2112.
Digitally Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 21/31 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:20:11 +0530
- 22 -
ii. Out of Kh. No. 30/26/1 of Village Shakurpur possession of land measuring 14 Bigha 18 Biswa has been handed over to DDA on dated 03.06.72. 6 Biswa to PWD on dated 07.06.73 and 7 Biswa & 4 Bigha 14 Biswa to C.H.B.S. 31.1. With regard to the reliance placed on the RTI reply, it is pertinent to observe that RTI reply is only evidence of the information available in the responding office at the time of the reply; however, an RTI reply is not in itself conclusive proof of the legal correctness of the record relied upon unless corroborated by other substantive evidence such as primary documents from which the information is given. Such primary documents showing allotment of acquired land to different agencies were not produced by the plaintiffs.
32. List of built-up properties excluded from possession proceedings - As per the list of built-up properties, whose possession was not taken - Ex. PW-5/2 - Name of plaintiffs' father is not originally mentioned in the list. Name "Hari singh" (father of plaintiffs) has been overwritten in Hindi in blue pen on a copy of the original document. Further, another copy of the same list has been placed on record as Ex.PW-
9/10, which does not show "Hari Singh" written in Hindi at the same entry/place as Ex.PW-5/2 - which clearly points towards forgery and fabrication. Further, the entry in Ex.PW- 5/2, allegedly pertaining to plaintiffs' father shows name of Hari Singh's father as "sohan lal", whereas, the admitted name of Hari Singh's father is "Mohan lal" as per the ration Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 22/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:20:16 +0530
- 23 -
card (Ex.PW-9/8) and death certificate of plaintiff's father Hari Singh (Ex.PW-9/2). Furthermore, the number of plaintiffs' property was also not mentioned in the list of excluded properties - Ex.PW-5/2 or Ex.PW-9/10. Therefore, for these reasons, in totality, plaintiffs' case is negated qua their property being listed in the list of built-up properties whose possession was not taken. It is concluded that the plaintiffs have not produced any cogent and specific evidence to show that the suit property was included in the list of excluded properties, whose possession was not taken.
33.Based on above analysis and discussion, the issue-wise findings are given below.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS
34. Issue no. 1 is "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP"
34.1. For a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant/DDA, which is an authority claiming statutory title by acquisition, plaintiffs were required to show a clear legal right and that they are entitled to exclusive possession of suit property, which lies outside the acquired area.
34.2. Possession of plaintiffs is a proven fact and the plaintiffs have the right to protect possession against illegal interference. However, when the defendant/DDA claims ownership by operation of law through an acquisition proceeding, plaintiffs must show with reliable documentary evidence that their plot was not acquired.
Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 23/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:20:22 +0530
- 24 -
34.3. In the present case, plaintiffs only proved possession but failed to prove that the plot is outside the acquired area or that they possess a provable title. Plaintiffs only possess a registered sale deed of 1946 (Ex.PW-9/A) but this deed does not specify any area/dimension of the land sold. The plaintiffs did not produce any conclusive documentary evidence such as - tatima, demarcation report, Lal Dora certificate or a title document describing 600 sq. yds. - to prove legal entitlement to suit property measuring 600 sq. yds. Further, plaintiffs even failed to prove that the suit property was left out of the possession proceedings.
34.4. Whereas, on the other hand, DDA has proved the acquisition, possession taken and vesting of Khasra no. 30/26/1 as well as the location of suit property as falling in the acquired khasra no. 30/26/1 (as discussed in paragraph no. 28.2 above).
34.5. Plaintiffs have not discharged their initial and decisive burden of proof to prove that the suit property is part of the abadi deh/ Lal Dora and therefore excluded from the acquisition. Ss. 101, 103, Indian Evidence Act places the burden of proof on the person who substantially asserts the existence of the fact. In the present case, the burden of proof on the plaintiffs was significantly higher since they have sought a decree of permanent injunction against a public authority claiming statutory title. Although the amended plaint expressly pleads that the plot measuring 600 sq. yds. is within the Lal Dora/Abadi deh of Village Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 24/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:20:27 +0530
- 25 -
Shakurpur and the plaintiffs led oral and documentary evidence in support (Ex. PW9/A -- 1946 sale deed; Ex. PW9/1 -- site plan; Exs. PW9/5-9 -- utility bills; Exs. PW5/1, PW5/D1, PW5/6 and Ex. PW2/2 -- RTI reply), the material placed on record by the plaintiffs does not prove the pleaded fact on a scale of preponderance of probabilities.
34.6. Crucial documentary proof which would directly identify the suit property vis-à-vis khasra boundaries -- a Lal Dora certificate, the tatima showing khasra boundaries or a sale deed describing the precise dimension and location of 600 sq. yds. -- is absent. PW-9 himself admitted there is no Lal Dora certificate, the 1946 sale deed does not specify area, and the site plan produced does not show khasra boundaries. The list of built-up properties excluded from possession proceedings (Exs. PW5/2 or Ex.PW-9/10) neither list name of plaintiffs' father nor number of suit property. The RTI reply (Ex. PW2/2) is only an information-report of a public office and, without primary documentary evidence, cannot substitute for the proof the plaintiffs are required to lead. Further, the summoned officials conceded that the tatima was not traceable. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to produce any demarcation report of the suit property.
34.7. Defendant has proved that the location of suit property as falling in the acquired khasra no. 30/26/1 (as discussed in paragraph no. 28.2 above).
Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 25/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:20:31 +0530
- 26 -
34.8. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the very fact which is the foundation of their claim
-- that the suit property is Lal Dora/abadi deh and therefore outside the acquisition & possession proceeding. Given plaintiffs' failure to discharge this burden, they do not have any legally enforceable title or interest in the suit property in the sense of an absolute right that can defeat the statutory acquisition and vesting proved by DDA. The plaintiffs remain occupants in possession but their asserted legal title to 600 sq. yds. is unproved. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining DDA.
34.9. In view of abovementioned, issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiffs, and in favour of defendant.
35. Issue 1a and 1b are decided together since they pertain to the location of suit property vis-à-vis khasra no. 30/26/1. Issue no.1a is "Whether the suit property falls in khasra no. 30/26/1 of village Shakurpur which is acquired and placed at the disposal of defendant/DDA as is alleged by the defendant? OPD". Issue no.1b is - "Whether the suit property does not form part of the acquired land of khasra no. 30/26/1? OPP."
35.1. As discussed above (in paragraph no.28.2), to discharge the onus placed on the defendant, an Aks part shajra of Mauza Shakurpur was proved as Ex. DW-1/3 (OSR). Ex. DW-1/3 is the only document on record from either party that shows the location of the suit land vis-à- vis Khasra No.30/26/1. Ex. DW-1/3, on its face and as Digitally Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 26/31 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.06 16:20:36 +0530
- 27 -
explained by DW-1, places the suit land within Khasra No.30/26/1.
35.2. To challenge the validity of Ex. DW-1/3, plaintiff side put only bare suggestions in the cross examination of DW-
1, to the effect that (a) the Aks part shajra had not been proved "as per plan" and (b) the suit land had not been shown in the shajra by its dimensions. DW-1 specifically denied those bare suggestions. No material, specific, or documentary was put forth by the plaintiffs to show that Ex. DW-1/3 is either a false document, or that it does not pertain to the suit locality, or that it was incorrectly prepared. The witness was not confronted with evidence of forgery, inconsistency or with any other document that would displace the validity of aks part shajra. In short, the plaintiffs did not produce any cogent evidence to dispute or falsify Ex. DW-1/3. Thus, Ex. DW-1/3 has not been effectively rebutted and retained its considerable probative value for the purpose of showing suit property as part of khasra no. No.30/26/1.
35.3. The plaintiffs had to postitively prove exclusion of suit property from acquisition. Plaintiffs' evidence on the crucial point of location of suit property being outside acquired land of khasra no. 30/26/1, is entirely missing. Their 1946 sale deed does not describe the area; their site plan does not show any khasra boundaries; there was no demarcation; admittedly, there is no Lal Dora certificate; the list of built-up properties excluded from possession (Ex.PW-5/2 or Ex.PW-9/10) does not mention the suit Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 27/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.06 16:20:42 +0530
- 28 -
property. Accordingly, plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden on the scale of balance of probabilities.
35.4. In view of abovementioned, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have not proved that the suit property lies outside the acquired Khasra No.30/26/1. Conversely, Ex.
DW-1/3, which remains uncontradicted in substance, establishes that the suit property is located within Khasra No.30/26/1, which was acquired and placed at the disposal of the defendant/DDA.
35.5. Thus, issue 1a is answered in the affirmative -- the suit property falls in Khasra No.30/26/1 and is part of the land acquired and placed at the disposal of the Defendant/DDA. Issue 1b is answered in the negative
-- the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit property does not form part of the acquired land of Khasra No.30/26/1.
36. Issue no. 2 is "Whether the suit is bad for want of notice U/s. 53B of DD Act? OPD". Plaintiffs rely upon a notice dated 11.09.1999 (Ex. PW9/17) and postal receipt (Ex. PW9/18) and AD Card (Ex. PW9/19). Further, DW-1 admitted that DDA did not reply to the legal notice dated 11.09.1999 of the plaintiffs. This admission of DW-1 is sufficient to show that notice dated 11.09.1999 (Ex. PW9/17) was in fact served on DDA. Thus, issue no.2 is answered in negative. The plaintiffs did serve a notice under Section 53-B, DD Act.
37. Issue no.3 is "Whether the suit has not been property valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD". Suit of Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 28/31 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:20:47 +0530
- 29 -
the plaintiffs is for injunction simpliciter. Same has been valued at Rs.130/- and appropriate Court fees has been paid. The defendant has not shown anything contrary to said valuation. Thus, issue no.3 is also answered in negative. Suit of the plaintiffs has been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction.
38. Issue no.4 is "Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD." Plaintiffs proved their possession of the suit property. However, they failed to prove a legal title to the specific 600 sq. yds. of suit property; and also failed to show that suit property lies outside the acquired khasra. Bare possession only gives right to the plaintiffs to protect their possession against unlawful interference. However, in the present suit, the plaintiffs have sought permanent injunction against DDA, a public authority asserting its ownership over the land through statutory acquisition. Thus, mere possession without proof that the land is not part of acquired land is insufficient to establish plaintiffs' locus to seek injunctive relief restraining the defendant. In the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish the necessary legal entitlement that would give them locus to challenge DDA's claimed title or to seek a permanent injunction restraining DDA where DDA relies on acquisition. Thus, issue no. 4 is answered in affirmative and in favour of defendant. Plaintiffs do not have adequate locus to seek permanent injunction against DDA.
Digitally Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 29/31 signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06 16:20:51 +0530
- 30 -
CONCLUSION
39. Khasra No.30/26/1 (20 bigha 5 biswas) has been acquired by Award No.2112; possession proceedings and notifications show that acquired land was placed at DDA's disposal.
39.1. Plaintiffs have proved actual longstanding possession of the house at Municipal No. WZ-114/58, but they have failed to prove title to the claimed area of 600 sq. yds., and they have failed to produce reliable documentary evidence to establish that suit property lies outside the acquired land. The list of built-up properties relied upon contains does not include suit property.
39.2. The plaintiffs have not established a legal right or entitlement to obtain the decree of permanent injunction against DDA where DDA relies on statutory acquisition and vesting.
RELIEF
40. In view of above discussion and findings, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on merits.
COST
41. In exercise of discretion under S.35 and 35A, CPC as well as the inherent power vested in this court under S.151, CPC, the LRs of plaintiffs shall pay Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to defendant as cost of the suit.
42. Decree sheet to be prepared accordingly.
Digitally Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 30/31 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.06 16:20:56 +0530
- 31 -
43. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally
signed by Lalit
Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.12.06
16:21:05
(This judgment contains 31
+0530
pages and each page has been (LALIT KUMAR)
signed by the undersigned) Civil Judge-02, West,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Announced in the open Court
on 05.12.2025
Suit No. 612472/2016 Samay Singh & Anr. vs. DDA 31/31