Delhi District Court
And Also vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
(NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. : 7/2014.
Smt. Mandeep Kaur
Wife of Sh. Jug Raj Singh
Plot No. 706, Block J,
Gali No. 10,
Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi.
And also
E-105, Wazirpur J.J. Colony,
Delhi-110052.
...Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi.
(service to be effected through its Vice Chairman)
2. CEO, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Punarvas Bhawan,
New Delhi. ...Defendants.
ORDER:-
1. Matter was posted for orders.
2. Issues were framed on 12.05.2014 and out of which issue No. 5 was treated as a preliminary issue. Same reads as under:-
1. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of DUSIB Act 2010?
OPD.
Suit No. 7/14. 1 of 5 Smt. Mandeep Kaur Vs. DDA etc.
3. Now in reference to the said issue the relevant plaint averments be noted in brief:-
Case of the plaintiff is that one Mst. Hanifa wife of Sh. Rafi was in physical possession of a jhuggi bearing No. N-221/10, under bridge, Azadpur Fruit Mandi, Delhi. She was issued a provisional identification slip bearing Serial No. 47 dt. 12.03.2007 by slum and JJ department, MCD for allotting a plot No. 706, sector-16, Rohini, measuring 18 sq. meters. Subsequently, possession was delivered to her on 17.03.2007 by the Slum department and Hanifa had also deposited a sum of Rs.7000/- with Slum and J.J. Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Thus, she became the absolute owner of the said property(henceforth referred to as suit property). She had, thereafter, sold the said plot to one Sh. Anurag Nagpal by way of GPA , Agreement to Sell and purchase, possession letter, receipt, deed of Will, affidavit against valuable consideration. The said Sh. Anurag Nagpal further had sold the said plot to the plaintiff vide documents dt. 06.11.2012 i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, possession letter, Will and thus, the plaintiff became the lawful purchaser of the suit property. The chain of documents the plaintiff was complete and she was the bonafide purchaser. The erstwhile Slum and JJ department of MCD had handed over the charge and records of the said property to the defendant No. 2
- Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi(henceforth referred as 'DUSIB') The officials of the defendants were harassing the plaintiff with a view to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. It also transpired, though it was not communicated to the plaintiff that the allotment to the suit property has been cancelled. Under such circumstances, plaintiff prays for a decree of declaration Suit No. 7/14. 2 of 5 Smt. Mandeep Kaur Vs. DDA etc. thereby declaring the cancellation order with regard to the suit property i.e. property No. 706, Sardar Colony, Block J, Gali No. 10, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi as illegal, improper, malafide, ineffective and unenforceable. Plaintiff further sought a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants directing the defendants and its officials to remove the seal from the ground floor of the suit property and to deseal the same and also to pass a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their officials etc. from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.
4. DDA had filed the written statement submitting that the alleged jhuggi or the plot No. 706, Block J. Pocket J, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi were not allotted by DDA nor it had any concern with the same and as such DDA was neither a necessary nor a proper party and its name was liable to be deleted from the array of parties. The main party/the party against whom relief could be claimed, if any, was DUSIB.
5. On the other hand, DUSIB in its written statement has contended that the transfer of the plots by way of sale was not permissible in as much as they were allotted on license basis and any sale or transfer by way of GPA or any other mode was unlawful and not permissible as per the law and policy in the matter. The allotment of the suit property was already cancelled by the department. On the aspect of jurisdiction of this Court, it was specifically contended that the suit was barred by the provisions of DUSIB Act, 2010 as the same was a Special Act and it also provides remedies to the plaintiff/any aggrieved party. Reliance was placed on Section 44 and 45 of the DUSIB Act. It was, however, admitted that Mst. Hanifa was allottee of the suit plot. Rest of the averments were denied as false and incorrect.
Suit No. 7/14. 3 of 5 Smt. Mandeep Kaur Vs. DDA etc.
6. Now the primary question which needs to be considered is whether the appropriate remedy of the plaintiff lies before this Court or as per the DUSIB Act the jurisdiction of this Court is ousted. Section 44, 45 and 49 are relevant. I am not quoting the same for the purposes of brevity.
7, Section 49 of the DUSIB Act specifically excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or institution of any cause before it in respect of the proceedings initiated by the Board or by any member under the direction of the Board.
The clause is widely couched, the exclusion clause is inserted for the purposes of ruling out the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of matters pertaining to which the 'Board' as so constituted under sub section 3 of the Act (referred to in section 2 of the Act) is competent/the action taken by its officials. The obvious purpose is to confine the matters pertaining to the properties of DUSIB within the domain of the authority so constituted under the Act and to render the same immune from scrutiny by the Civil Court.
Now Section 44 and 45 prescribes the mode/provide the remedy to any aggrieved person in as much as he can file an appeal to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor in respect of any order/directions or notice given by the Board. It is urged by the Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the remedy prescribed under the Act i.e. u/s 45 is too harsh and in this manner the plaintiff would be deprived of her rights in respect to the suit property. She had paid valuable consideration and acquired vacant possession of the suit property and in a manner she has been cheated. She also belongs to a poor strata of society, has no other shelter and would be rendered homeless.
Suit No. 7/14. 4 of 5 Smt. Mandeep Kaur Vs. DDA etc.
8. The argument raised by Ld. counsel for plaintiff does not give him any legal entitlement to file a suit in reference to a property/an action commenced by DUSIB. Suffice here to state that jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been specifically ousted and a remedy is given to the aggrieved party under the Act. That can not be given a go by and Civil Court exercise its jurisdiction on the premises that the property was put to sale albeit unauthorisedly.
9. It is also to be noted that the initial allotment letter, the proforma of which has been placed on record categorically in clause No. 12 reveals that sale and purchase of the plot is illegal as the allottee has no ownership right in respect of the plot. It is also stated that the allotment of the plot shall be cancelled automatically if the same is used by any other person than the allottee. Thus, it also cannot be said that the plot in question/the allotment letter also did not mention this aspect at the outset/the plaintiff was a gullible purchaser who has been cheated.
12. As such jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit is specifically ousted. Plaint is liable to be rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC at the outset. However, nothing stated herein shall affect the legal rights of the plaintiff to agitate all possible pleas before the authority as prescribed u/s 45 of the DUSIB Act or even against the previous sellers before the Civil Court. Plaint is rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Sumit Dass)
on 25.08.2014 SCJ-CUM-RC NORTH
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No. 7/14. 5 of 5
Smt. Mandeep Kaur Vs. DDA etc.
25.08.2014.
Present: None.
Matter was posted for orders.
Vide separate judgment of even date, plaint is rejected u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
(SUMIT DASS) SCJ-cum-RC (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi/25.08.2014.
Suit No. 7/14. 6 of 5 Smt. Mandeep Kaur Vs. DDA etc.