Delhi District Court
Bhoop Singh Gola vs Mcd on 29 November, 2025
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS)
SUIT No. 612543/2016
CNR No. DLWT03-000029-1994
In The Matter Of:
Sh. Bhoop Singh Gola (deceased)
Through LRs:
i. Mrs. Roop Kala,
W/o Late Sh. Bhoop Singh Gola
ii. Ms. Mukesh Gola
D/o Sh. Bhoop Singh Gola,
iii. Ms. Seema Gola,
D/o Sh. Bhoop Singh Gola,
All residents of H.No.309, Ambedkar Chowk,
Village Munirka, Delhi-110067
..........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 1/30
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01
15:40:56
+0530
- 2 -
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, Near INA Market
New Delhi
...........................DEFENDANTS
Suit filed on :- 14.06.1994
Judgment Reserved on :- 15.10.2025
Date of decision :- 29.11.2025
Decision :- DISMISSED
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate a suit for permanent injunction and, by subsequent amendment, also for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in respect of alleged property bearing no. 352-E/31, Village Munirka, New Delhi. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is crucial to concisely state the pleadings in the present suit.
It is pertinent to mention here that at the stage of final arguments, the learned counsel for plaintiff withdrew the prayer for mandatory injunction by giving a statement, as recorded in the order 10.09.2025. The suit, therefore, now survives only in respect of the original prayer for permanent injunction.
Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 2/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:41:20 +0530
- 3 -
PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
1. As per the last amended plaint of the year 2007, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is a permanent resident of Village Munirka by birth and inheritance, and that his ancestors settled there more than 100 years ago. He pleads that he and his family were in "permanent possession" of property no.
352-E/31, Village Munirka, measuring about 100' x 55', which he asserts falls in Khasra No. 825(1 min) (hereinafter "suit property").
2. According to the plaintiff, Khasra No. 825/1, measuring about 20 bighas, formed part of Shamlat Taraf Munirka belonging to the zamindars. Various communities--Jatav/Chamar, potters, barbers, carpenters etc.--are stated to have constructed kacha/pukka houses there with permission of those zamindars. The plaintiff avers that his grandfather constructed houses on a portion of this land; after his death, the houses devolved to his father and, by mutual settlement, the portion now known as property no. 352-E/31, Village Munirka fell to his share and he has been residing there with his family.
3. The plaintiff relies on ration card, election identity card, water connection, electricity and house tax assessment/receipts in respect of suit property to show long and settled possession. He further pleads that a part of the village land was acquired by Award No. 1938 of the year 1965. The acquired portion of land is stated to be 87 bighas, 5 biswas (87-5) of Khasra no. 825/2/31 and 9 bighas 16 biswas (9-16) of Khasra no. 823/2/3 in Village Munirka. It is averred that Khasra No. 825/1 was not acquired. Plaintiff relies on a letter dated 26.03.1966 of Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 3/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:41:33 +0530
- 4 -
the Additional District Magistrate and a report of the then Land Acquisition Collector (Sh. Ram Prasad) which, according to him, states that about 22 bighas 3 biswas of built-up area was "left out" of acquisition. On this basis, he claims that Khasra No. 825/1 was excluded from acquisition and further asserts that the land upon which suit property is situated, was never acquired by any authority.
4. The plaintiff further avers that the suit property also lies outside a DDA/MCD park known as Park No. 9 ("hillock pond site") as per a joint demarcation allegedly carried out on 07.10.1997 by DDA and MCD, and that the land under his house has never been acquired or transferred to any authority. He also alleges that large portions of acquired land have been usurped by powerful persons in collusion with officials, while poor residents like him are being targeted by demolition drives.
5. It is further averred that in May 1994, officials of defendant no.1/MCD illegally demolished a portion of suit property used for cattle and storage, which led to filing of the present suit in 1994 seeking permanent injunction to restrain MCD from demolishing any portion of his property.
6. Subsequently, the plaintiff alleges that, during the pendency of the present suit, on 20.03.2007, officials of defendant no.2/DDA came to the spot, stopped him from entering the suit property, and started raising a boundary wall, which was completed on 27.03.2007. He pleads that in this manner he was dispossessed during pendency of the suit. On the basis of these subsequent events, the plaintiff amended the plaint and added a prayer for mandatory injunction seeking restoration Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 4/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:41:57 +0530
- 5 -
of possession, contending that he was entitled to "status quo ante" as on the date of suit.
7. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought:
(i) a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1/MCD from demolishing any portion of property no. 352-E/31, Village Munirka; and
(ii) a decree of mandatory injunction directing restoration of possession of the suit property.
8. As already noted, the prayer for mandatory injunction was withdrawn on 10.09.2025.
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS
9. Defence of defendant no.1/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) - Defendant no.1/MCD, in its amended written statement, raised preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable for want of mandatory statutory notice under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. 9.1. Defendant no.1/MCD further pleads that as per demarcation and transfer record supplied by defendant no.2/DDA, the suit land has never been handed over to MCD and continues to belong to DDA. Thus, there is no cause of action against MCD. On merits, MCD either treats the plaint averments as matter of plaintiff's record or denies them for want of knowledge, reiterating that the land in question is under the jurisdiction of defendant no.2/DDA.
9.2. Defendant no.1/MCD specifically avers that it has not taken demolition action on any land belonging to the plaintiff; that the land in question was never transferred to Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 5/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:42:07 +0530
- 6 -
it; and that the dispute is essentially between the plaintiff and defendant no.2/DDA.
10.Defence of defendant no.2/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) - Defendant no.2/DDA, in its written statement, contends that the suit is misconceived, filed with mala fide intent and discloses no cause of action against DDA; it is stated to be liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It also pleads suppression of material facts, improper valuation and lack of jurisdiction in view of the acquisition.
11. On merits, DDA's contends that the suit land does not fall in Khasra No. 825/1; instead, it forms part of Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min, revenue estate of Village Mohammadpur, Munirka, which was acquired under Award No. 1938, possession taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31.05.1967, and placed at the disposal of DDA under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act on 03.01.1968.
12. DDA alleges that the plaintiff encroached upon about 400 sq. yards of DDA land in Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 by putting up temporary structures. After obtaining interim orders of the Court, the plaintiff continued on the land till vacation of the stay, whereafter DDA demolished the structures and reclaimed the land on 15.01.2007, and again on 20.03.2007 when the plaintiff allegedly re-encroached. Demolition diaries are relied upon for demolition proceedings against the structure of plaintiff. DDA asserts that the land is now enclosed by a boundary wall and is in its physical possession.
13.DDA denies all allegations of collusion or mala fide action. It contends that ration card, water connection, or house tax payment receipts do not confer title over acquired government Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 6/30 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:42:15 +0530
- 7 -
land, and that no injunction can be granted in favour of an unauthorised occupant as against the acquiring authority/true owner. It also pleads non-service of statutory notice under Section 53B of the DD Act.
ISSUES
14. Based on the pleadings of both the sides, initially, issues were framed on 14.07.1997 and subsequently, after amended pleadings, additional issue 1A was framed on 17.05.2010, as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 1A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction for restoration of possession of the disputed property? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata u/s. 11, CPC in view of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 10.03.1993 in CWP No.4356/92? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
15. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, one neighbour as PW-2, and two official/summoned witnesses as PW-3 (ASO, Central Record Room) and PW-4 (translator).
16. PW-1/plaintiff filed an affidavit Ex. PW1/X reiterating the contents of the plaint. He relied upon following documents:
Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 7/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:42:26 +0530
- 8 -
i. Site plan of the suit property - Ex. PW1/1 (no khasra number mentioned);
ii. Ration card and election I-cards - Ex. PW1/2 to PW1/4 (colly);
iii. Water bill and sanction letter for connection - Ex.
PW1/5, PW1/6;
iv. House tax receipts and assessment - Ex. PW1/7 (colly), PW1/8;
v. Caste certificate reflecting his address - Ex. PW1/9; vi. Certified copies of field book, khasra girdawari and aks-sajra - Ex. PW1/10 to PW1/12;
vii. Photographs of alleged demolition - Ex. PW1/13 (colly);
viii. Aks-sajra filed by DDA - Ex. PW1/14; and ix. A noting in DDA file F-9(6)/94 CRC South - Ex.
PW1/15.
17. PW-1 also referred to photocopies of certain documents which were marked as Mark A to C (representation to Chairman, Public Relation Committee, Delhi Administration is Mark A; letter of Additional District Magistrate bearing no. ADC-1493/RDC/66 dated 26.03.1966 to Land Acquisition Collector (M) is Mark B; report of Land Acquisition Collector (M), Ram Prasad is Mark C).
18. In his cross-examination, PW-1 made several important admissions:
i. He did not serve any statutory notice on MCD or DDA prior to filing the suit.
ii. He has no sale deed, conveyance, will, mutation, or bhumidhari document in respect of the suit property.
Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 8/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:42:36 +0530
- 9 -
iii. He admitted that Khasra No. 825/1 stands in the name of "Gaon Shamlat/Shamlat Deh" and that neither he nor his father are recorded as bhumidhars. iv. He admitted that there is no notification de-notifying Khasra No. 825/1 from acquisition. v. He admitted that none of the documents Ex. PW1/2 to PW1/9 nor does the site plan Ex. PW1/1, mention any khasra number,.
vi. He admitted that he has no revenue record of ownership in his or his father's name. vii. He admitted that demolition was carried out on the disputed land by MCD and DDA on 06.05.2005, and that after demolition the land is lying vacant and is in the possession and jurisdiction of DDA. viii. He admitted that he now resides at house no. 309, Village Munirka, an ancestral property of the family, about half a kilometer away from the disputed land. ix. He admitted that, except for Ex. PW1/15 (a noting in a DDA file), he has no document which shows that the suit land falls in Khasra No. 825/1. x. He also admitted, when confronted with the rough location plan Ex. PW1/DF filed by DDA, that his property is correctly shown in red colour in that plan.
19. PW-2/Ram Singh, a resident of the village, generally deposed that the plaintiff's family was living on the land which is on eastern side, about 50 yards from the road touching Munirka Vihar Colony. He stated that the property was with the grandfather of the plaintiff; and later came to plaintiff in succession. He also stated that the land in question Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 9/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:42:50 +0530
- 10 -
was neither acquired, nor DDA ever came in possession. PW- 2, however, admitted that he has not seen any title documents and that he does not know the khasra number of the land.
20. PW-3/Sh. Mahaveer, ASO, Central Record Room, Revenue Department, Tis Hazari Court Complex produced the Masavi of village Mohammadpur, Munirka [Ex. PW3/1 (OSR) (colly)], but admitted that he cannot read Urdu, cannot identify khasra numbers, and has no personal knowledge of the suit land.
21.PW-4/A.A. Naiyar, translated a portion of the Masavi into Hindi (Ex. PW4/1) and confirmed that Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min is not mentioned there. He too admitted that he has no knowledge of the suit land; his role was confined to translation.
DISPOSAL OF SUIT FOR NON-PROSECUTION, RESTORATION AND SUBSTITUTION OF LRS OF PLAINTIFF
22. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default for non- appearance and non-prosecution on 12.08.2016. Thereafter, an application for restoration was filed by the plaintiff side in the year 2019, averring that suit could not be prosecuted due to hospitalisation and subsequent death of the plaintiff, Sh. Bhoop Singh Gola on 06.11.2017. The application for restoration was allowed vide order dated 14.08.2020 and suit was restored to its original number. An application for substitution of Legal Representatives (LRs) was allowed by the court vide order dated 31.01.2024 and the LRs of the plaintiff were substituted. Thereafter, defence witnesses were recalled for their cross-examination.
Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 10/30 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:42:58 +0530
- 11 -
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
23. Evidence of Defendant no.1/MCD - MCD examined D1W- 1 Jaivir Singh, Assistant Director (Horticulture), South Zone. He affirmed his affidavit Ex. D1W-1/A, stating that the suit land, as per demarcation and transfer records, has never been handed over to MCD and continues to belong to DDA. In cross-examination, D1W-1 admitted that he is not conversant with legal provisions and does not know khasra numbers, but maintained that the land in question is in possession of DDA, not MCD and the same is situated at "pahar" in Munirka village in front of JNU gate on Baba Gangnath Marg. D1W-1 categorically and consistently denied that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff or that MCD has any concern with it; and asserted that the suit land was found to be in possession of DDA during his visits to the suit property.
24. Evidence of Defendant no.2/DDA: DDA examined four witnesses:
24.1. D2W-1 Azhar Ahmed, Patwari, LAC, produced certified copies of Award No. 1938 and possession proceedings dated 31.05.1967 as Ex. DW1/1 and Ex. DW1/2.
24.2. D2W-2 Jagdish Chander, Kanoongo, DDA, filed affidavit Ex. DW2/A and relied upon Award No. 1938 -
Ex. DW1/1; Possession proceedings - Ex. DW1/2; Notification under Section 22(1) DD Act dated 03.01.1968 - Ex. DW2/1; Demolition reports dated 15.01.2007 & 22.03.2007 - Ex. DW2/2 & Ex. DW2/3.
Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 11/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:43:06 +0530
- 12 -
The plaintiff did not cross-examine this witness as well. However, later, an application was filed by the plaintiff to recall this witness; he could not be recalled as he had retired from the department. Another witness, D2W3 was produced by DDA in his place. Therefore, the testimony of D2W-2/Jagdish Chander is rejected as another witness was produced by DDA in his place. 24.3. D2W-3 Kuldeep Singh, then Naib Tehsildar with DDA, filed affidavit Ex. DW3/A and relied on - Award No. 1938 - Ex. DW1/1; Possession proceedings - Ex.
DW1/2; Notification under Section 22(1) DD Act - Ex. DW2/1; Demolition reports - Ex. DW2/2, Ex. DW2/3; and Demarcation reports dated 20.01.2004 and 18.06.2004 - Ex. DW3/1 & Ex. DW3/2. He deposed that, pursuant to orders of the Court, demarcation of the disputed land was conducted in his presence along with the Tehsildar and other officials; that the suit land was found to fall in Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min, not in Khasra No. 825/1; and that the land has been in DDA's jurisdiction and possession. In cross-examination, D2W-3 admitted certain limitations such as - he had not personally seen old revenue records and some acquisition records appeared to be incomplete - but consistently maintained that the demarcation was done using permanent points fixed by the Revenue Department; the abadi lies towards north; the plaintiff was present at the site during demarcation; and the suit land does not fall in Khasra No. 825/1.
24.4. D2W-4 Manoj Tomer, Patwari, DDA, deposed Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 12/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:43:13 +0530
- 13 -
through his evidence affidavit Ex.D2W-4/A and relied upon abovementioned documents relied upon by other witnesses for DDA, along with a rough location plan, Ex. PW-1/DF. He reiterated that the entire Khasra has been acquired; that plaintiff encroached on the acquired land and his encroachment was removed; and that the suit land is presently within the DDA boundary wall. In cross- examination, he admitted that no khasra number is marked on the land itself and he identified the suit land on the basis of the DDA shizra (plan) of Village Mohammadpur, Munirka and rough location plan already on record as Ex. PW1/DF; he visited the suit property and identified it as part of Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min; that he visited only the suit property and not the adjoining area, and that no DDA board was affixed; but he denied the suggestion that the land falls in Khasra No. 825/1. He deposed that the demolition at the suit land was carried out for the first time on 15.01.2007; that he did not have knowledge about previous demolition carried out by MCD on 09.06.1994; and maintained that the suit land is still with DDA and has not been handed over to the MCD.
24.4.1. D2W-4 also tendered in his evidence the English translation of possession proceedings in Urdu (Ex. DW-1/2) and the same was exhibited as Ex. DW- 1/7 (OSR).
24.4.2. D2W-4 was confronted with 6 photographs (marked as Mark D1W-1/A; objected by learned counsel for DDA on the ground of mode of proof) and was asked "Is it correct that the photographs depict Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 13/30 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.01 15:43:23 +0530
- 14 -
the suit property, which is in possession of Bhoop Singh Gola?". The witness replied that during his last visit to the suit property, no such structure was existing on the suit property/land and the suit property/land was in possession of DDA and a fresh visit will have to be conducted to confirm the contents of the photographs. Rest of his cross-examination was regarding the area around the suit property; contents of the Award no. 1938 (Ex. DW1/1), possession proceedings (Ex. DW1/7) and demolition reports (Ex. DW2/2, Ex. DW2/3) and the witness pleaded lack of knowledge to most of such questions. Suggestions of the plaintiff side were denied and no considerable admission was made by this witness.
ANALYSIS
25. Issue 1A - Mandatory Injunction - As noted earlier, by order dated 10.09.2025, the Court recorded the statement of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the prayer for mandatory injunction is withdrawn. In view of this unequivocal withdrawal, issue No. 1A also extinguishes.
26.Thus, the only surviving substantive relief is the original prayer for permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1/MCD from demolishing any portion of the suit property.
27. Effect of Admitted Demolition and Dispossession - whether the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous? - In the amended plaint itself (paras 9 and 11A-11B), the plaintiff pleads that his house/suit property was partly demolished in May, 1994; further, during pendency of suit, Digitally signed by Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 14/30 Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.01 15:43:30 +0530
- 15 -
DDA stopped him from entering the suit property, completed construction of a boundary wall on 27.03.2007; and, as a result, he was dispossessed from the suit land. Further, in his cross-examination, PW-1/plaintiff re-affirmed that the suit property was demolished (by MCD and DDA) and that after demolition the land is lying vacant and is in DDA's possession and jurisdiction. He also admitted that he was then residing elsewhere.
27.1. Thus, the plaintiff has himself shown that since 27.03.2007 -
i. there is no structure existing at the site where suit property once existed;
ii. plaintiff has been out of possession for many years. iii. the land is in possession and jurisdiction of DDA, enclosed by a boundary wall.
27.2. Once the mandatory injunction claim for restoration of possession has been abandoned and there is no existing structure to protect, the prayer to "restrain demolition"
becomes wholly infructuous. Courts are not expected to grant decrees which are incapable of implementation or which deal with a situation that no longer exists. 27.3. The learned counsel for defendant no.2/DDA had primarily argued the same aspect, i.e., in light of the admissions of the plaintiff in his pleadings as well as his evidence, his prayer for permanent injunction became infructuous long time ago. Learned counsel relied upon the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shipping Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 15/30 signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:43:37 +0530
- 16 -
Corporation of India Ltd. v. Machado Brothers1, wherein it has been held that where subsequent events make the original cause of action disappear, the court should treat the matter as infructuous and dispose of it accordingly; to continue such litigation would be an abuse of the process of court.
27.4. No rebuttal/reply/counter to the said argument was made by the plaintiff side.
27.5. In the present case, demolition of suit property and dispossession of the plaintiff admittedly occurred in 2005-2007; and the land is stated to be lying vacant within DDA's boundary wall. On this ground alone, the suit--limited now to a sole prayer for permanent injunction against demolition--has become wholly infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
28. Identity of the suit property/land - despite being out of possession and demolition of the suit property, the plaintiff tried to raise a dispute regarding the location of the suit property by attempting to establish that the suit property/land falls in Khasra no.825/1 and denied it falls in acquired khasra no.1191/701/2/2 min (vested in DDA). Under Order VII Rule 3, CPC, a plaint relating to an immovable property must contain a description sufficient to identify the property by specifying boundaries or numbers.
28.1. In the present case, site plan Ex. PW1/1 is neither to scale nor does it mention any khasra number or clear/pucca boundaries. The draughtsman, who is the author of the document, was not produced as a witness 1 (2004) 11 SCC 168.
Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 16/30 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:43:44 +0530
- 17 -
to prove Ex.PW1/1. Thus, Ex.PW1/1 remained an unproved document and cannot be considered as a piece of evidence, since non production of the draughtsman deprived the defendants of their right to cross-examine the witness on its preparation and correctness. 28.2. Further, immediate adjacent land to the North and South of the suit property are shown as acquired land vide Award no. 1938. The land adjacent in the North of the suit property is shown be of one Sh. Om S/o Sh.
Harchand and acquired vide award no.1938 at serial no. 2/15. Similarly, the land adjacent in the South of the suit property is shown to be of one Prem Singh s/o. Sh. Nihal Singh, and acquired vide award no.1938 at serial no. 17/45 of the award. Thus, it is clear from the plaintiff's own site plan that the suit property is surrounded in North and South with the acquired land. The plaintiff has failed to explain how the lands to the North and South were acquired and suit property was left out of the acquisition. There is no documentary evidence to show whether any land was left out of acquisition between the lands of Sh. Om S/o Sh. Harchand and Sh. Prem Singh s/o. Sh. Nihal Singh. This leads to the sole conclusion that the land pertaining to the suit property was also acquired vide Award no. 1938.
28.3. Plaintiff admitted that none of his documents (ration card, voter cards, water bills, house tax receipts, caste certificate etc.) mention the khasra number or establish that property no. 352-E/31 lies in Khasra No. 825/1. He further admitted in his cross examination that he has no Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 17/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:43:50 +0530
- 18 -
document to show that the suit property falls in khasra no.825/1.
28.4. Plaintiff admitted in his cross examination that he has no sale deed, conveyance, will, mutation, bhumidhari document or revenue record in respect of the suit property.
In absence of such documents, the dimension of the suit property, i.e., 100' x 55', also remained unproved since plaintiff failed to place on record any document which shows the area of suit property as either 100' x 55' or of any other dimension. The area or dimension of an immovable property cannot be proved solely by self- serving oral evidence of the plaintiff. 28.5. Furthermore, when confronted with Ex. PW1/DF (rough location plan filed by DDA), plaintiff admitted that his property is correctly shown in red colour therein. This rough location plan is relied upon by DDA to show that the land forms part of Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min. This amounts to an admission on part of the plaintiff that the suit property falls in Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min, as averred by the DDA.
28.6. The plaintiff produced Masavi, Ex. PW-3/1 and its translation Ex. PW-4/1 to suggest the existence of Khasra No. 825/1 and non-mention of Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2. However, at best, the Masavi shows historical khasra numbers prior to acquisition; it does not identify the specific plot in dispute as part of Khasra No. 825/1. Therefore, these documents also do not establish plaintiff's case qua location and identification of the suit property/land.
Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 18/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:43:57 +0530
- 19 -
28.7. The plaintiff's reliance on a supposed report of LAC Ram Prasad that 22 bighas 3 biswas were left out of acquisition is also of no assistance to him. Firstly, the said report is merely a reply to the letter of the ADM and does not show that the area mentioned therein was in fact left out of the acquisition proceedings. Only the land acquisition Award and the possession proceedings can be considered to ascertain what portion of land was acquired and of which portion, the possession was taken. Further, the plaintiff has not proved that his particular 100' x 55' plot forms part of that allegedly left out area.
Furthermore, marked documents A, B, C are mere photocopies and have not been formally proved; and the plaintiff admitted he has no record of how the left-out portion was demarcated.
28.8. Lastly, plaintiff's reliance on the internal file noting of DDA (part of Ex. PW1/5) to assert that suit property/land was not acquired - cannot overturn the entirety of evidence against his case. Such internal file notings have limited evidentiary value as they are internal departmental deliberations and do not constitute a final government decision unless officially and formally issued by the department and communicated to the concerned person. The internal file notings merely represent the opinions of individual officers and can be changed, corrected or withdrawn; hence, such notings cannot be used to claim any rights or entitlements. In absence of any other substantial evidence to corroborate or support them, the recommendation in the internal file noting cannot be Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 19/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:44:02 +0530
- 20 -
the sole basis to prove a fact. No other documentary evidence has been produced by the plaintiff to show either that the suit property/land falls in khasra no.825/1 or that the suit property/land falls in the area left out of acquisition.
28.9. On the other hand, DDA has placed on record and proved:
i. Award No. 1938 - Ex. DW1/1, showing acquisition of, inter alia, Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 measuring 583 bighas 8 biswas;
ii. Possession proceedings dated 31.05.1967 - Ex.
DW1/2 and its translation Ex. DW1/7, recording taking over of possession and handing it to DDA; iii. Notification under Section 22(1) DD Act dated 03.01.1968 - Ex. DW2/1, placing the acquired land at the disposal of DDA;
iv. Demarcation reports dated 20.01.2004 & 18.06.2004 - Ex. DW3/1 and Ex. DW3/2, showing that the disputed site falls in Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min;
v. Demolition diaries - Ex. DW2/2 & Ex. DW2/3, especially mentioning the name of the plaintiff and recording removal of unauthorized structures from Khasra No. 1191/701 min.
28.10. Crucially, D2W-3 and D2W-4, though cross-
examined at length, remained firm that upon demarcation the suit property/land falls in Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min and not in Khasra No. 825/1. Their evidence on acquisition and demarcation thus stands substantially Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 20/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:44:22 +0530
- 21 -
unimpeached.
28.11. Considering the totality of evidence, this court finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish the location as well as dimension of the suit property. He has further failed to establish that the suit land is part of Khasra No. 825/1 or that it is a part of unacquired land.
29.Maintainability of plaintiff's suit: Based on the factual matrix, the fundamental question that arose before the court is that - "Whether the suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable in view of the nature of the plaintiff's claim and admitted dispossession?". The legal position regarding suits for injunction simpliciter relating to immovable property has been summarised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy.2 The relevant principles are:
i. Where the plaintiff is in lawful possession and there is mere interference or threat of dispossession, a suit for injunction simpliciter may lie; ii. Where the plaintiff is out of possession, and title is disputed or under a cloud, the proper remedy is a suit for declaration and possession, with or without consequential injunction;
iii. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. iv. As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. 2 (2008) 4 SCC 594.
Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 21/30 signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:44:30 +0530
- 22 -
29.1. In the present case, plaintiff himself pleads and admits that he has been dispossessed since 2005-2007 and that defendant no.2/DDA is in actual possession. His alleged title is seriously disputed by DDA and, as held above, he has failed to establish any title or legally recognised right in the suit property. Further, plaintiff has not sought possession of the land; and on the contrary, plaintiff side withdrew the prayer for mandatory injunction which was in substance a relief of restoration of possession.
29.2. During cross examination of witnesses D1W-1 (Jaivir Singh; witness of MCD) and D2W-4 (Manoj Tomer, Patwari; witness of DDA) the learned counsel for plaintiff confronted these witnesses with 6 photographs (marked as Mark D1W-1/A). D1W1 was asked "is it correct that as per the photograph being shown to you the family of the plaintiff Sh. Bhoop Singh Gola has always been in possession of the suit land even till date?" and the witness D2W-4 was asked "Is it correct that the photographs depict the suit property, which is in possession of Bhoop Singh Gola?". By producing these photographs allegedly taken at the suit property and by implying that the plaintiff's family has always been in possession of the suit property, it appears that the plaintiff side attempted to establish a new case during the cross examination of D1W-1 and D2W-4.
29.2.1. The last amended plaint as well as the oral testimony of the plaintiff admitted the facts of demolition and dispossession since 2005-2007 (as Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 22/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:44:37 +0530
- 23 -
discussed in detail in paragraph number 27 above). Therefore, the attempt of plaintiff side to assert that the plaintiff's family has always been in possession of the suit property/land (solely on the basis of 6 photographs Mark D1W-1/A) - is not only beyond pleadings but also contrary to the pleadings as well as the oral testimony of the original plaintiff. The LRs of the plaintiff or their SPA holder/parokar cannot be allowed to establish such a case.
29.2.2. Further, in any case, the witnesses D1W-1 and D2W-4, both refuted the photographs by their oral testimony; both categorically and consistently maintained that the suit property/land was found to be vacant and in possession & jurisdiction of DDA during their visits.
29.2.3. The production of 6 photographs (Mark D1W-
1/A) at the stage of cross examination was opposed by the learned counsel for DDA submitting that no new document can be produced during the cross-examination. The decision on the objection was reserved for the final arguments and judgment. The objection raised by the learned counsel for DDA is not sustainable in law. It is settled position of law that any document can be directly produced at the stage of cross- examination of a witness, to confront the witness, under Order VII, Rule 14(4); Order VIII, Rule 1- A(4) and Order XIII, Rule 3 of CPC without Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 23/30 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:44:43 +0530
- 24 -
seeking prior leave of the Court. It has been held that production of documents for both a party to the suit and a witness as the case may be, at the stage of cross-examination, is permissible within law.3 29.2.4. However, mere production of 6 photographs during the cross examination does not amount to proving the same as per law. Firstly, the said photographs, which are clearly printouts of digital evidence, were not filed along with mandatory certificate under S. 65B, Indian Evidence Act.
Thus, the photographs remained unproved. Secondly, the authenticity of these photographs is questionable as there is no evidence that the photographs were actually taken at the suit property/land. Photographs do not bear any date- time stamp to show date and time on which these photos were taken. There is no affidavit accompanying the photographs to provide such information. Thirdly, the photographs only show certain articles such as a fridge, cooler, metal rack, two cycle-carts - lying in open - which are not sufficient to show possession of suit property/land. Lastly, in any case, if the plaintiff side is claiming possession of the suit land, after plaintiff's admission of demolition & dispossession in the year 2007, then it necessarily 3 Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer and another, Civil Appeal No. 8146 of 2023, dated 14.12.2023.
Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 24/30 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:44:49 +0530
- 25 -
follows that the possession is unlawful and not liable to protection.
29.2.5. Accordingly, in totality, the 6 photographs placed on record as Mark D1W-1/A remain unproved, are beyond and contrary to pleadings and testimony of plaintiff himself, and do not support the case of the plaintiff in any manner. Therefore, Mark D1W-1/A is rejected from the evidence. 29.3. Therefore, by his own pleadings and admissions, the plaintiff's case falls squarely within the category contemplated in Anathula Sudhakar where a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. Being out of possession and lacking clear title, he ought to have sought appropriate declaratory and possessory relief--if at all he could--but he has chosen not to do so. Plaintiff, being out of possession, cannot seek injunction simpliciter and the relief sought by him ought to be denied solely on the basis of finding on possession.
29.4. Consequently, even apart from suit being infructuous, the present suit cannot be decreed as a mere injunction suit in the face of established acquisition, DDA's possession, and the plaintiff's lack of title and lack of possession. Thus, suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
30. Role of defendant no.1/MCD - The only surviving relief in the present case is a prayer of permanent injunction to restrain defendant no.1/MCD from demolishing the property.
However, defendant no.1/MCD has consistently pleaded that Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 25/30 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.12.01 15:44:54 +0530
- 26 -
the land has never been handed over to it by defendant no.2/DDA. Its witness D1W-1 reiterated that the suit land is in DDA's possession & jurisdiction and that MCD's role is confined to maintenance of certain parks in the area. The plaintiff's own amended plaint attributes the latter demolition (of 2007) and construction of boundary wall to DDA, and not MCD.
30.1. In these circumstances, no cause of action subsists against defendant no.1/MCD. No effective injunction can be issued against MCD in respect of a land which is neither owned, nor possessed, nor controlled by it and from which, as per plaintiff's own case, he stands dispossessed.
30.2. Accordingly, the suit against defendant no.1/MCD also cannot succeed.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
31. In view of above discussion and analysis, the issues framed in the present case are decided as follows:
32. Issue no.1 - "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP". In view of above discussion, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit land is unacquired or that it falls in Khasra No. 825/1. The plaintiff has no title, no recorded right, and no lawful estate in the suit land. He has been out of possession for many years and admits that DDA is in physical possession. The earlier structure, if any, has already been demolished; the land lies vacant and within a boundary wall of DDA. The relief of Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 26/30 signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:45:08 +0530
- 27 -
mandatory injunction/possession has been withdrawn, and hence the remaining relief of permanent injunction against defendant no.1 is infructuous, not maintainable in law as a mere injunction suit and without any cause of action against the defendant no.1/MCD.
32.1. Therefore, issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
33.Issue no.1A is "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction for restoration of possession of the disputed property? OPP" - as abovementioned, the prayer for mandatory injunction was withdrawn by the plaintiff side. As a result, issue No. 1A extinguishes.
34. Issue No. 2 is "Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata u/s. 11, CPC in view of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 10.03.1993 in CWP No.4356/92? OPD". Initially, before the amendment of pleadings, defendant no.1/MCD had pleaded that the suit is barred by res judicata on account of an order dated 10.03.1993 in CWP No. 4356/92 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Detailed pleadings of that case were not brought on record and no arguments were seriously pressed at the stage of final hearing on this plea. In the absence of necessary material to establish the identity of parties, issues before the court and subject matter of the case, the bar of Section 11 CPC is not made out. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided against the defendants.
35. Issue No. 3 is "Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts?
OPD" and issue no.4 is "Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD." In the facts of this case Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 27/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:45:15 +0530
- 28 -
and as per the discussion and analysis mentioned above, it is not strictly necessary to record a finding that the plaintiff has deliberately suppressed material facts. It is sufficient to say that he has failed to prove any right, title or lawful interest, and therefore lacks locus standi to seek an injunction against the defendant no.1/MCD or the acquiring authority/DDA. Issues 3 and 4 are thus decided in favour of the defendants to the extent that the plaintiff has not established any legal right to the land or to maintain a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction.
CONCLUSION
36. In light of above findings, the surviving prayer for permanent injunction has become infructuous in view of admitted demolition and dispossession long ago. Even on merits, the plaintiff has failed to establish lawful possession, any right, title or interest in the suit property, or even clear identity of the suit land. It stands established that the suit land is part of acquired government land in Khasra No. 1191/701/2/2 min and is in possession of DDA. No cause of action or relief survives against MCD.
37. Objections filed by the plaintiff against the demarcation report dated 18.06.2004 [Ex.DW3/1 (colly)] and covering letter/report of the Tehsildar as court appointed Local Commissioner (DW-3/2) are also dismissed as infructuous since the question of identity of the suit property/land was only secondary to the maintainability of the case of the plaintiff.
Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 28/30 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:45:20 +0530
- 29 -
RELIEF
38. Sole substantive issue has been decided against the plaintiff.
The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on merits.
COST
39. Plaintiff filed and pursued the present suit against the government authorities (MCD and DDA) for over thirty years. As abovementioned, the prayer for permanent injunction of the plaintiff became infructuous in 2007, i.e., more than 18 years ago; prayer for mandatory injunction was withdrawn. Thus, it appears that the plaintiff side pursued an infructuous, non-maintainable case which is devoid of any cause of action. By continuing such proceedings, the plaintiff side has caused unnecessary expenditure of public funds, since every step taken by the government authorities in defence of the present suit has been at the cost of the public exchequer. Plaintiff's suit has resulted in wastage of public money which could have been used for other genuine and better purpose/litigation. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted to go unpunished.
39.1. Accordingly, this Court finds it necessary to impose costs upon the plaintiff side, both to compensate for the unwarranted burden placed upon public resources and to deter the filing of such baseless and uncalled-for suits against government authorities in future.
39.2. In view of abovementioned, 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 plaintiff side is Digitally Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 29/30 signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01 15:45:27 +0530
- 30 -
burdened with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). Rs. 25,000/- each shall be paid to the defendant no. 1/MCD and defendant no.2/DDA. The Legal Representatives of the plaintiff are liable to pay this cost to the Defendants 1 and 2, within 1 month from the date of this judgement. Failing which, the defendants concerned shall be at liberty to seek remedy, as per law.
40. Let the decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.12.01
15:40:17
(This judgment contains 30 +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 29.11.2025
Suit No. 612543/2016 Bhoop Singh Gola vs. MCD & Anr. 30/30