Delhi District Court
Bijendra Kumar And Others vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 November, 2024
Digitally
signed by
SANATAN
SANATAN PRASAD
PRASAD Date:
2024.11.23
17:32:06
+0530
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANATAN PRASAD
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, (East),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MCA DJ No. 07/2020
CNR No.DLET01-004414-2020
In the matter of:
1. Sh. Bijendra Kumar,
2. Sh. Devendra Kumar,
3. Sh. Sunil Kumar,
4. Sh. Anil Kumar,
All S/o Late Sh. Rattan Singh,
All R/o Khasra No. 317, Main Road,
Village Khichiri Pur, Delhi110091. ..............Appellants
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman, Vikas Sadan,
INA Market, New Delhi-110023. ...........Respondent
Date of Institution : 10.09.2020
Date of Reserving for Order : 30.09.2024
Date of Order : 23.11.2024
Appeal under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 151, CPC, 1908, against the
Order Dt. 20.08.2020 passed by Ms. Niti Phutela, ASCJ-cum-JSCC-cum
Guardian Judge, District East, Delhi in CS No. 2/2019, titled as Bijendra Kumar
& Ors Vs. DDA.
Present: Sh. Bijendra Kumar, Appellant No.1 in person, also representing as
Ld. Counsel for the other appellants.
Sh. Kshitij Ahuja, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Page No. 1/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020
ORDER
1. This is an appeal directed against the impugned Order, dated 20.08.2020, passed by the Court of Ms. Niti Phutela, the then Ld. ASCJ-cum-JSCC-cum- Guardian Judge, East, KKD, Delhi, vide which, the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC, of the present appellants/the then plaintiffs.
2. The present appellants have made and confined their limited challenge to the impugned order, dated 20.08.2020, on the grounds that they are in actual and physical possession, (in the form of Tin Shed Shops), of area of land measuring 900 Sq. Yds., forming part of Khasra No. 310, Village Khichripur, Delhi, since time immemorial through their ancestors, to the present Appeal, thereby contending that even the suit filed by them before Ld. Trial Court simplicitor for permanent injunction was maintainable, and further the Ld. Court, below was not justified in dismissing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC, filed by them, in the suit bearing No. 2/2019, while overlooking the facts, circumstances and documents of the case, as in hand and passed the impugned order against law, which suffers from material irregularities.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, dated 20.08.2020, the present appellants/the then plaintiffs have filed the present appeal and challenged the impugned order, on various grounds, including that the ld. Trial Court had altogether ignored the provisions of law in regard to the permanent injunction Page No. 2/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 and erred in holding that Rame Gowda's decision is not applicable to the facts of present case, besides, the facts of the Judgements of Premji Ratansey Vs. UOI's, Bakshi Ram Vs. DDA's, Rajinder Kakkar & Anr. Vs. DDAs and Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy's cases, which are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case were neither looked into, nor given effects by the Ld. Court below.
4. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, which has put its appearance through Counsel but has not submitted its formal reply to the Memorandum of Appeal and has opposed the same directly while filing written arguments.
5. Record of the trial court is also requisitioned and perused.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the present appellants, in detail, and perused the record, also written submissions and case laws, relied upon, by the parties. Ld. Counsel for the present appellants has drawn my attention to the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court that because of non-filing of Khasra Girdwari, water and electricity connection bills and absence of the name of the shops, the present appellants/the then plaintiffs have failed to show their settled possession in regard to the suit property, whereas, the ld. Trial Court, has, completely overlooked the pleadings and documents, which have been filed on record, and after perusal of the said record, i.e., copies of demarcation report, dated 12.05.2016, land transfer papers, dated 30.03.1982, Page No. 3/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 RTI replies, dated 05.03.2008, 08.05.2008, 22.08.2008, 05.03.2009 & 20.03.2009 and complaint, dated 07.07.2008. Ld. Counsel for the present appellants has forcefully, submitted that the present appellants/the then plaintiffs are, clearly, in lawful/legal possession of the suit property since time immemorial and Ld. Trial Court, heavily, erred while relying upon the judgements of Premji Ratansey Vs. UOI, Bakshi Ram Vs. DDA, Rajinder Kakkar and Ors Vs. DDA, and Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Ors, which are not even applicable to the present case, and the Ld. Trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the appellant/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules, 1 and 2, CPC.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the present respondent has contended that the total land of Khasra No. 310, Village Khichripur, Delhi comprises of 9 Bigha, out of which 7 Bigha 5 Biswa was acquired by the DDA, vide Award No. 30A/70-71. The possession of the same was handed over to DDA on 05.04.1977. Out of the said total land, 1 Bigha 15 Biswa has not been acquired as the same was built up. Further, the property alleged by the plaintiffs/appellants is falling in the area, which has been acquired and not within the area which is un-acquired. Moreover, it is also, argued that present appellants/the then plaintiffs are not in settled possession of the suit property for the last 40 years because a demolition programme was carried out by the respondent/defendant on the suit property on 24.07.2001. Consequently, the judgements, viz., Premji Ratansey Vs. UOI, Bakshi Ram Vs. DDA, Rajinder Kakkar and Ors Vs. DDA, and Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Ors, are squarely, applicable to the present case.
Page No. 4/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020
8. Sh. Bijendra Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the present appellants has, forcefully, contended that the Ld. Court, below, has, erroneously, came to the conclusion that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs & Anr, DOD : 15.12.2023, is not squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and further, for the reasons that the then plaintiffs/present appellants are in settled possession of the land, shown in red, in the attached site plan and he also lays emphasis to the reply made on merits, to the paragraph No.8 of the plaint, in its written statement, by the DDA. He also submits that evasive denial is no denial and DDA has never pleaded that the land in question is a vacant site, whereas, the demarcation report, bearing date 12.05.2016 and submitted on dated 14.05.2016, in the Court, in the matter of Ratan Singh & Ors. v. DDA, (CS No.16/2009); Baldai & Ors. v. DDA, (CS No.14/2009); Ram Chander v. DDA, (CS No.296/2009), clearly, shows the name of Smt. Baldai, Predecessor-in-interest to the appellants and her, (tin shed/shops), in Khasra No.310, in the area of 887.13 sq. yards and therefore, his submission is that the present respondent/the then defendant, i.e., DDA, can be taken to have admitted the fact that the suit land is not a vacant site and for this, he places further reliance on the decisions in case/(s), of State of Punjab v. Gurmel Singh,2003 (2) Civil Court Cases, 115, (P&H), Catarina Fernandes & Ors. v. jose Menino Rodrigues & Anr., 2013(1) Civil Court Cases, 306, (Bom.) & Maddasani Venkata Narsaiah ((D) Through LRs v. Muddasani Sarojana, 2016(2) Civil Court Cases, 646, (S.C.). His next submission is that the DDA, has, deliberately, concealed material facts, as the Award in question, clearly, shows that only land measuring 5 bigha 11 biswa was made available to DDA, as a road was already in existence, covering the area of 1 bigha 14 Page No. 5/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 biswa and therefore, the entire land of 7 bigha 5 biswa was never transferred to DUSIB. He also relies on the decisions in cases of Michael Mascarenhas & ors. v. John Mascarenhas, 1997(1) Civil Court Cases, 135, (Kar.) and Kasi Lakshmi Janaki (Stm.) & Anr. v. Rangu Papachary, 2017(1) Civil Court Cases, 846, (Hyd.) and pleads that the admission of facts, made in the other written statement, filed by the DDA in case of Smt. Phoolwati v. DDA, clearly, shows that as per written state ment, the area of 6 bigha 10 biswa was transferred to MCD for JJ Residential Scheme on 30.03.1982. He, frankly, accepts that the present appellants/the then plaintiffs, are encroacher and have been continuing with their settled possession over the acquired land of Khasra No.310, as above, but, his further contention is that the encroached portion of the land never vested in DDA, as the DDA has not placed on record any evidence/material to show that possession of the acquired land/encroached portion had been taken by it after passing of the Award and in view of the demarcation report, dated 12/14.05.2016, the alleged transfer of possession is farce and inconsequential, as the encroached portion did not vest in the govt. and for this, he relies on the case of Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2013 (1) Civil Court Cases, 106 (SC). He also lays emphasis on Section 114 (d) of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to contend that continuity of possession should be presumed, unless the defendant adduces evidence to show that the plaintiff had vacated and delivered possession of the property in question and a decision in the case of M/s. Hydrogen Fuel System v. Smt. Praveena Madan, 2013 (4) Civil Court Cases (AP), is relied on, in this regard. He also contends that the Ld. Court, below, has failed to apply its mind and required the factum of settled possession to be shown with regard to the irrelevant materials, such Page No. 6/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 as, eletrictity bills etc., or, receipts, in respect of running of the shop or purchasing goods therefor, though, the demarcation report, itself, was sufficient to show the settled possession of the present appellants and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sri Shivaji Balram Haibatti v. Sri Avinash Maruthy Panwar, 2018 (1) Civil Court Cases, 767 (SC), is further relied on, in this regard. He has, again, relied on the Rame Gowdas' case and further decisions of Punjab & Haryana High Court, in case of Municipal Committee, Ratia, District Fatehabad v. Gurmeet Singh, 2017 (2) Civil Court Cases, 257 (P&H) and lastly, on the case of Smt. Premwati v. Jagdish Prasad & Ors., 2011 (2) Civil Court Cases, 482 (Allah.) and in nutshell, his contention is that, the defendant/DDA, has, clearly, admitted, in the amended written statement, filed in CS No.506/199 that in the middle of the paragraph No.8, in reply on merits, "...that the land forming part of khasra No.311min. and 316min. has already been got vacated on 24.07.2001 from unauthorized encroachers by removing / demolishing unauthorized structures raised thereupon...", and based on this, his submission is that, the land falling in Khasra No.310 was never got vacated by the DDA. He also submits that it is immaterial, in which Khasra Number, the suit land falls, as long as the original encroachment is not shown to have been cleared and therefore, even, in the year 2016, Smt. Baldai, (Tin Shed/Shop), was found present in demarcation report. He also submits that the said report was accepted by the Hon'ble Court of Smt. Geetanjali, the then Ld. ASCJ, KKD, Delhi, on 16.05.2017, which was ordered to be carried out by the Ld. Court of Sh. Dharemendra Rana, then ASCJ, KKD Courts, Delhi and, now, he points out that even the transfer papers to Slum & JJ Department, dated Page No. 7/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 30.03.1982, mentions about the encroachment in Khasra No.310 and requires its removal by the DD, NL, and the same position continuous in the RTI reply, dated 05.03.2008, also 22.08.2008 and further, 05.03.2009 and the copy of the report, dated 20/23.03.2009, again, reiterates about the existence of encroachment and further, in RTI reply, dated 24.05.2012, which in its column No.5 states that according to record, no program was carried out, during the given period.
9. On the other hand, Sh. Ahuja, Ld. Counsel for the DDA, has, contended that when the present appellants accepts themselves to be the encroacher, then, no injunction can be granted to them against the true owner, i.e., the DDA and his further submission is that the Ld. Court, below, relying on the case of Rajinder Kakkar v. DDA, has, rightly, held that no injunction can be granted to the then plaintiffs, who are even rank trespassers and encroacher on public land, moreover, when the Ld. Court, below, has already taken a reasonable view of, and about non-existence of a prima facie case in favour of the present appellants/the then plaintiffs, then, this Court, sitting in appeal, should not disturb that findings, only for the reasons that another view is possible in wisdom of the Appellate Court, he, however, concedes that the view formed, in this regard, must be based on the objective materials, only, and in any case, the present appellants/then plaintiffs have not sought the relief of Declaration, according to the mandate of the case of Anathula Sudhakar's, which is refuted by Sh. Bijendra Kumar, on the ground that the present appellants/then plaintiffs have never claimed any title to the suit land and they seek injunction on account of their long standing, uninterrupted, open and hostile possession of their Predecessor-in-interest, over the suit land Page No. 8/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 for last about 40 years, which is continuing even today, as on the date of the suit filed before the Ld. Trial Court and he relies on the ratio of the decision in Rame Gowda's case, while drawing my attention to the following paragraph, reading as under :-
"....It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions. Illustratively, we may refer to Munshi Ram and Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration (1968) 2 SCR 455, Puran Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Ram Rattan and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 188. The authorities need not be multiplied. In Munshi Ram & Ors.'s case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in the due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner..."; And based on this, his contention is that the present respondent has no authority to evict the present appellants from the suit land and it is only the Slum & JJ Department, MCD, now, DUSIB, which has the authority to get the land vacated and that, too, only after following the due process of law and for this, he relies on the statement of DW2/1, in Ex.D2W1, filed in Suit Page No. 9/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 No.278/2003, in the case of Ratan Singh v. Paras Ram & Ors., before the Ld. Court of Sh. Dharmendra Rana, the then ASCJ, KKD, Delhi and the deposition made in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit to the following effects :-
"2.... It is further submitted that Paras Ram had encroached upon the land transferred to Slum & JJ Department and, therefore, position about action taken/to be taken against such unauthorized construction is to be explained by Slum & JJ Department of MCD. The answering defendant has not to take any action in respect of that land..."; He, again, submits that in the copy of the RTI reply, dated 05.03.2009, DDA has confirmed that the affidavit submitted by the Patwari is correct according to record. He also submits that the injunction can be given even to preserve the existing state of affairs and for avoiding multiplication of the unnecessary legal proceedings and in any case, with the rider that the respondent would follow the due process of law, while ejecting the encroachment and he, earnestly, pleads that the present appellants deserve the relief, in above scenario and the present respondent can be restrained from evicting them, during the pendency of the suit.
10. I have, carefully, perused the entire material, available on the record, including the record of the Ld. Court, below, as well as written submissions/synopsises, filed on behalf of both the sides, and from the perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the present respondent/DDA before the Ld. Court, below, it has been averred, therein, that Khasra No.310 of Village Khichirpur, comprises of 9 bighas of land, out of which, 7 bighas 05 biswas of land has already been acquired by the DDA vide Award No.30A/70-71 and possession thereof has also been handed over Page No. 10/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 to the DDA by the LAC/L&B on 05.04.1977 and thereafter, the said acquired land was placed at the disposal of DDA under Section 22(1) of DD Act, 1957, vide notification No.F8(31)78/L&B/L(P)-VOL.II, dated 01.02.1979. It has, further, been, averred that out of 9 bighas of land in Khasra No.310, land measuring 1 bigha and 15 biswas had not been acquired, as same was built up. Further, the suit property does not fall within the aforesaid unacquired land in Khasra No.310 and same fall within the acquired portion of Khasra No.310.
11. In the replication to the WS of the present respondent, filed before Ld. Court, below, it has been averred, therein, that the present respondent in other legal court proceedings had disclosed that as per record of Khasra No.310min., land measuring 7 bighas 05 biswas had been acquired and 06 bighas and 10 biswas stood transferred to MCD for JJ Residential Scheme from 30.03.1982 and hence, the land under reference is under control and management of the JJ Slum Department of MCD, now, DUSIB. It is, further, averred that a demolition program was carried out by the present respondent in Khasra No.311,312 & 316 etc. on 24.07.2001 and not in Khasra No.310.
12. I have gone through the site plan, annexed to the plaint, showing therein, Khasra No.310, Village Khichripur, Delhi, having tin shed shops (related to late Smt. Baldei), under red colour. Again, I have gone through the copies of the demarcation report, dated 13.05.2016/12.05.2016, which shows that Khasra No.310 was having Tin Shed/Shop of Smt. Bal Dai, area measuring 741.76 sqm, 0.18 acrea, 887.13 yards and along with this report, a copy of site plan is also annexed, which shows built up area in Khasra no.310 of Smt. Page No. 11/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 Baldai in shed/shops. Further, perusal of the paragraph No.2, of reply on merits of the WS filed by the present respondent, in case of Smt. Phoolwati v. DDA, before the then Ld. Court of Ms. Rachna T. Lakhanpal, Civil Judge, Delhi, shows that the present respondent had stated therein that the suit land falls in Khasra No.310min. of Village Khicharipur and as per record, land falling in Khasra No.310 min., admeasuring 7 bighas 5 biswas were acquired, vide Supplementary Award No.30A/70-71, which was placed at the disposal of the DDA vide notification under Section 22(1) of D.D.Act, bearing No. F-8(31)78, L&B/Vol.II, dated 01.02.1979 and land measuring 6 bighas 10 biswas stood transferred to the MCD for the JJ Residential Scheme from 30.03.1982. It was further averred therein in paragraph 3 of the reply on merits of the written statement that the encroachment was made by therein, then plaintiff, Smt. Phoolwai, on the DDA land, which, now, stood transferred to MCD, since 30.03.1982. The perusal of the papers for transferring the land on 30.03.1982, shows that 'taken over' and 'handed over' of the charge, in respect of the land measuring 6 bighas 10 biswas, falling in Khasra No.310/1-2/2/2 and in total 900 bighas, 14 biswas, which took place only on 30.03.1982. Further, the perusal of the copy of the evidentiary affidavit of Sh. Jagpal, Patwari, DDA, Vikas Sadan, shows that the suit land in that case forms part of Khasra No.310/1-2/2, Village Khichripur and 7 bighas and 5 biswas of land was acquired vide Supplementary Award no.30A/70-71 and after taking over physical possession of the land, the land was placed at the disposal of the DDA for its development vide notification No.F.8(31)/78/L&B/LA/P Vol.II, dated 01.02.1979. Further, the land measuring 6 bighas 10 biswas, falling in Khasra Page No. 12/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 No.310/1-2/2 was transferred to Slum & JJ Department of MCD. It is further stated, therein, that Sh. Paras Ram had encroached upon the said transferred govt. land and therefore, the position of action taken/to be taken against such unauthorized construction has to be explained by the Slum & JJ Department and the DDA cannot take action, in this regard. The perusal of the copy of the reply to the RTI, dated 05.03.2008, shows that land pertaining to Village Khichripur, falling under Khasra No.309/1 to 3/2 & 310/1-2/2/2, as per land record, (Eastern Range), DDA, dated 30.03.1982, has been transferred to JJ Department for J.J.R.Scheme, Patparganj, and only the possession has been transferred to JJ Department in respect of Khasra No.310/1-2/2/2. It has, been, further mentioned in this letter that the illegal possession should be removed by the DDA, in Khasra No.310/1-2/2/2, as reflected in Possession Proceedings, dated 30.03.1982 that there are illegal possession in Khasra No.310, which should be removed by DD N.L Staff. The copy of the reply to information, sought under RTI, dated 08.05.2008, placed on the record of the Ld. Court, below, shows that Smt. Phoolwati is in existence on govt. land, transferred to Slum & JJ and there is no need to provide the position regarding land measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas, because, DDA had submitted a fair reply beofre the Court in the matter of Smt. Phoolwati. It has, been further, mentioned in this letter that DDA had taken physical possession of the land from LAC/L&B measuring 7 bigha 05 biswas and thereafter, the land measuring 06 bighas and 10 biswas, was transferred to MCD for JJ Residential Scheme and further verification regarding acquisition of land measuring 1 bigha 14 biswas may be obtained from LAC. In reply to information sought under RTI, received vide Letter, dated 22.08.2008, it has Page No. 13/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 been stated therein, that a demolition program was carried out on 09.05.2007 and 27.09.2007, in Village Khichripur and the program conducted on 09.05.2007 was carried out in Khasra No.311,312,313&316 and further program was conducted on 27.09.2007 by Institutional Land Branch, DDA
13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the case laws, as discussed above, it, is clear that the the present appellants, are in possession of the land in question and they admit themselves, therein, to be as encroacher and this Court is of the considered view that the suit filed before the Ld. Court, below, is simplicitor for the relief of permanent injunction, only, and nothing more than that, and if at this stage, the interim relief of injunction is refused to the present appellants, it may harm them and at the time of granting the relief of interim injunction, the Court must consider several factors, like, prima facie case, irreparable loss, balance of convenience and further, an Order granting interim injunction, requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts and failure to comply with the same, can result in criminal or civil penalties, including damages or sanctions, also, in some cases, breaches of injunctions are considered having serious legal consequences. In the present case, the present appellants claim to be in possession of the property in question, way back since 40 years, through their ancestors/Predecessors-in-interest, which is shown to be not yet taken from the possession of the present appellants by any of the authority/(s), even after passing of the Award in question, and till date, and if, at this stage, the injunction is not granted, the present appellants may suffer an irreparable loss, as balance of convenience, prima facie, appears to be in favour of the present appellants, because, if at this stage, they may not be Page No. 14/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 given interim injunction, they may suffer an irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in any form and they will be deprived of the opportunity to prove their case before Ld. Trial Court and, therefore, the Ld. Trial Court was not right in asking the particular kind of material/evidence or proof to show their settled and continuing possession, especially, when the then plaintiffs did not plead that they have electricity connection etc. or, otherwise, running a shop from the encroached portion and any kind of relevant material could have been utilized to show the prima facie case, existing in favour of the then plaintiffs/present appellants, which has, now, sufficiently been pointed out to be existing, particularly, from the demarcation report and the existence of the encroachment on the own saying of the present respondent as well as Slum & JJ Department, itself, which is also, shown to have not been cleared by these authorities and in view of this, the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court, is not, justified, under the particular facts and circumstances of the presnet suit and the relevant material, also, pleading, laid before the record of the Ld. Court, below, and as such, the impugned Order suffers from material irregularity and requires interference from this Court and is liable to be set aside.
14. Accordingly, the present appeal, hereby, stands allowed and the im- pugned Order, dated 20.08.2020, stands set aside. The interim injunction is granted to the present appellants, only during the pendency of the suit, in re- spect of the land, shown in the site plan, attached with the plaint, measuring 887.13 sq. yards, as shown in the demarcation report, dated 12/13.05.2016 and the present respondent/the then defendant is restrained accordingly. How- ever, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, attaining in the Page No. 15/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020 case, the Ld. Court, below, is directed to finally dispose off the matter, as ex- peditiously, as possible and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs. Parties/Counsel/(s) are directed to appear before the Ld. Court, below on 29.11.2024 at 2.00pm. A copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Court, below along with TCR with a direction to act further in accor- dance with law, while taking care of the application, filed in the case regard- ing impleadment of Sh. Ravi Nagar/Applicant/Intervenor.
15. Nothing of my this order shall have any reflection whatsoever on the merits of the case in any manner.
16. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court On this 23.11.2024 (SANATAN PRASAD) District Judge-02, (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Page No. 16/16, Sh. Bijendra Kumar & Ors. v. DDA MCA DJ NO. 07/2020