Delhi District Court
Mange Ram vs Gaon Sabha on 6 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA JINDAL-JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-
GUARDIAN JUDGE, SOUTH, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
The Then
ACJ-cum-ARC, (SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURT, DELHI
CNR No. : DLSW030013862018
MANGE RAM VS. GAON SABHA & ANR.
a) CS SCJ : 942/18
b) Name & address of the : 1. Mange Ram
plaintiffs S/o Late Sh. Hari Chand,
R/o Village Rewla Khanpur,
Post Office Pandwala Kalan,
Delhi-110043
c) Name & address of the : 1. Gaon Sabha
defendants Rewla Khanpur, Delhi,
Through its BDO, Office,
Najafgarh Block, Delhi
2. Delhi Development Authority
Head Office at: 4, Mahatma Gandhi
Road, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002
Date of Institution of petition: 08.08.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgement: 06.11.2024 Digitally signed
by ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06
16:13:24 +0530
Page no. 1 of 56
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
The Case
1.The amended suit filed by the plaintiff arises from a series of alleged property disputes centered around Plot No. 216 in Village Rewla Khanpur, Delhi. This plot, originally allotted to the plaintiff under a 1982 government initiative aimed at assisting economically disadvantaged individuals, has been a focal point of ongoing tension, with the plaintiff seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to affirm possession and prevent interference by defendants.
2. The plaintiff contends that the plot was legally allotted through a Gram Sabha resolution passed under the Government's 20-Point Programme, supported by documented allotment records, including L.R. Form No. 38, possession certificates, and official receipts. Following this allotment, the plaintiff claims continuous residential use of the plot, constructing a boundary wall and intending further developments. However, in 2018, interference from the Gaon Sabha and local officials allegedly disrupted these efforts, escalating to threats of dispossession and partial demolition of the plaintiff's property.
3. Amid these disputes, a Gazette Notification in 2019 announced the urbanization of Village Rewla Khanpur, transferring lands, including the suit property, to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under central government authority. In response, the defendants challenge the plaintiff's claims, asserting the land's legal status as government Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.11.06 16:13:30 +0530 Page no. 2 of 56 property, lacking any legitimate individual allotment. Defendants argue that the plaintiff-submitted documents, including the alleged allotment certificate and possession forms, are fabricated, maintaining that the plot remains vacant and under DDA's lawful jurisdiction post-urbanization.
4. This case, therefore, centers on determining the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claims to Plot No. 216 in light of defendants' assertions. It raises questions about the plaintiff's legal standing and documentation, the application of urbanization statutes, and the protection of property rights under government welfare schemes, forming the basis for this court's deliberation on granting declaratory and injunctive relief.
5. This Court has duly considered the final arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. This Court has meticulously examined the entire record, giving careful attention to the pleadings, the evidence presented, and the submissions made on behalf of the parties as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff. Each aspect of the case has been analysed in light of the relevant facts and law, ensuring that all material brought before the Court has been fully reviewed and assessed in reaching a fair and just decision.
The Plaint
6. The plaintiff, a law-abiding and peace-loving citizen of India, has resided at the stated address with family, placing complete faith in the law and seeking redress through this Court. By resolution dated 17.04.1982, the competent authority, aiming to support the homeless and economically weaker residents, approved the distribution of residential plots under the Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 Page no. 3 of 56 16:13:35 +0530 Government's 20-Point Programme. Pursuant to this resolution, the Gram Panchayat of Rewla Khanpur, Delhi, allotted the plaintiff a residential plot. The plaintiff's name was duly recorded in L.R. Form No. 38, prepared by the Gaon Sabha, at Serial No. 42, and on 16.03.1983, the Gram Panchayat issued a certificate formally allotting Plot No. 216, measuring 120 square yards, within Khasra No. 29/15 (4 Bigha 16 Biswa) in Village Rewla Khanpur, Delhi. In compliance with the formalities, the plaintiff remitted Rs. 54 as lease money, receiving a receipt from the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha under L.R. Form No. 38. The allotted Plot No. 216 is bounded as follows:
o East: Road o West: Plot Nos. 235-236, Khasra No. 29/15 (Sh. Shyam Kumar) o North: Park o South: Plot No. 215, Khasra No. 29/15 (Sh. Gajraj) The boundaries are clearly indicated in red on the site plan annexed to this plaint.
7. Following the allotment, the plaintiff promptly took possession of the plot and erected a boundary wall approximately 2 feet high to demarcate it. Since then, the plaintiff has used the plot for residential purposes, with a temporary shed to shelter the area. In May 2018, the plaintiff arranged construction materials to build a permanent structure on the plot. However, an officer of the Gaon Sabha/BDO Office obstructed this activity, preventing the plaintiff from proceeding with the construction. Shortly thereafter, on 20.05.2018, the obstruction intensified when an official representative of the defendant, accompanied by an unidentified village resident, deliberately interfered with the plaintiff's attempts to Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:13:38 +0530 Page no. 4 of 56 continue construction. The official and the villager threatened the plaintiff with severe consequences if he did not cease construction efforts and, in a further act of intimidation, demolished part of the boundary wall surrounding the property.
8. It has become evident that certain officials of the Gaon Sabha and BDO Office, allegedly in collusion with specific village residents, are intent on forcibly and unlawfully dispossessing the plaintiff of the plot. This intent contravenes the lawful rights accorded to the plaintiff through the formal allotment by the Gaon Sabha, issued for the plaintiff's benefit under a government welfare initiative. The allotment list, duly verified and approved by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Najafgarh, clearly reflects the plaintiff's name at Serial No. 42 on L.R. Form No. 38, confirming his entitlement to the property.
9. The plaintiff, despite being the lawful occupant of the plot, continues to face threats from the defendants, who, acting in concert, aim to dispossess him without due process. The plaintiff holds a valid right to the property by virtue of the patta/allotment provided by the Gaon Sabha, which intended this land to support the homeless and disadvantaged. The defendants' conduct, therefore, directly contravenes the foundational purpose of the government's welfare scheme, which seeks to uplift those without shelter.
10.The plaintiff has filed complaints with the local police station concerning the defendants' illegal actions and threats but, regrettably, has received no response or assistance. During the pendency of the present suit, defendant No. 1 informed this Court, and the plaintiff, of a Gazette Notification Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 Page no. 5 of 56 16:13:41 +0530 dated 28.01.2019, indicating that the land in Village Rewla Khanpur, including the suit property, has been urbanized.
11.Upon investigation, the plaintiff learned that, per this notification, the entire land of Village Rewla Khanpur, including the suit property, has now been categorized under South (DMC) Zone L. This urbanization has resulted in the land vesting with the Central Government and subsequently being placed at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for development and maintenance, as stipulated under the Delhi Master Plan. The plaintiff now harbors grave apprehension that the defendants, namely Gaon Sabha (defendant No. 1), the Urban Development Department (defendant No. 2), and the DDA (defendant No. 3), may attempt to dispossess him from Plot No. 216 without following the required legal procedures.
12.The actions of the defendants are unlawful, arbitrary, and violate the principles of natural justice. In the absence of any other effective remedy, the plaintiff has no recourse but to seek intervention and protection from this Court. The cause of action for the present suit initially arose in May 2018, when officials from the Gaon Sabha/BDO Office first obstructed the plaintiff's construction efforts. The cause of action further arose on 20.05.2018 when the defendant's official and others in the village intensified their interference and destroyed a portion of the boundary wall. Additionally, the cause of action arose when defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiff and the court of the Gazette Notification dated 28.01.2019, indicating the urbanization of the suit land. The cause of action persists and remains ongoing. Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:13:44 +0530 Page no. 6 of 56
13.The plaintiff has valued the present suit for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction as follows:
o Permanent Injunction: Rs. 130 (Court fee: Rs. 13) o Mandatory Injunction: Rs. 130 (Court fee: Rs. 13) o Declaration: Rs. 200 (Court fee: Rs. 20)
14.As the plaintiff permanently resides in Village Rewla Khanpur, where the suit property is located, and as the offices of the defendants and BDO Office fall within the jurisdictional reach of this Court, the Court has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. In light of the above, the plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Court may graciously:
(i) Issue a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, agents, representatives, and any person acting on their behalf from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession of Plot No. 216, measuring 120 square yards in Khasra No. 29/15, Village Rewla Khanpur, Delhi, as delineated in red on the attached site plan. Additionally, the plaintiff requests that the defendants be prohibited from interfering with any construction on the said plot.
(ii) Grant a declaration affirming that the plaintiff's possession of the suit property is lawful and valid, based on the allotment made by the Gaon Sabha.
The plaintiff further seeks any other relief that this Court may deem appropriate and just, given the facts and circumstances of this case.
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06
16:13:47
+0530
Page no. 7 of 56
Written Statement by Defendant/Gaon Sabha
15.The defendant respectfully submits that, unless specifically admitted here, all statements, allegations, and claims made by the plaintiff are denied. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving all allegations that are not explicitly admitted.
16.The plaintiff claims possession of a fictitious Plot No. 216. Certified revenue records, annexed for this Court's perusal, confirm that the plaintiff does not occupy the plot and has made no construction on it. By concealing these facts, the plaintiff has not come before this Court with clean hands and is, therefore, undeserving of any relief. The suit is based on wholly incorrect facts and, being untenable in law, is liable to be dismissed.
17.Moreover, the suit cannot be sustained against the defendant, as the land in question is part of Rewla Khanpur village, which has since been urbanized and vested with the Revenue Department of GNCTD. No document submitted by the plaintiff substantiates his alleged ownership or possession of the plot. While the plaintiff's name may have appeared in an earlier resolution, such inclusion alone does not confer lawful ownership or possession. No lawful allotment was ever issued to the plaintiff, nor was it ratified by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, as mandated under Rule 176 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2006. The alleged L.R. Form 37 and 'Praman Patra' dated 16-03- 1983, presented by the plaintiff, are falsified records created solely to Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL mislead this Court.
ANURADHA Date:
JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:13:51 +0530 Page no. 8 of 56
18.The plaintiff's suit is based entirely on forged documents, including a fabricated 'Praman Patra' and L.R. Form No. 37. Certified revenue records show the land at Khasra No. 29/15 is vacant agricultural land, further disproving the plaintiff's claims. The defendant reserves the right to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against the plaintiff for submitting falsified documents to this Court. The plaintiff's claims rely entirely on fictitious facts and have no merit. Since the plaintiff has never possessed the land or undertaken any construction upon it, the suit is barred by limitation, and the relief sought is unsustainable.
19.Further, the plaintiff has no legal claim to the land in question, which is under the ownership and control of the Revenue Department of GNCTD. Certified records substantiate that the plaintiff has no lawful right to claim this land as his own, rendering this suit unsustainable in law and liable to be dismissed. Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that the official records reflect a change as of 12-09-2018, confirming that ownership of the land now rests with the Revenue Department of GNCTD. Therefore, the suit lacks any legal foundation and should be dismissed.
20.No cause of action arises for the plaintiff against the Gaon Sabha, as no lawful allotment or possession was granted to him. The purported cause of action is entirely fictitious and has been crafted solely to sustain this suit, rendering it dismissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff claims ownership of the plot on the basis of alleged documents which are false and fabricated and were never issued by the Gaon Sabha. The suit is flawed in that it fails to include necessary parties, such as the Revenue Digitally signed by ANURADHA Page no. 9 of 56 JINDAL ANURADHA Date:
JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:13:55 +0530 Department/GNCTD. The documents submitted with the plaint are not legible, lack legal enforceability, and hold no sanctity in law, as they are fraudulent and intended solely to claim government land. The plaintiff's attempt to obtain restraining orders on the basis of fabricated documents is a clear abuse of legal process, and the suit deserves dismissal with costs.
21.The plaintiff has also failed to affix the requisite court fee, and the value of the suit property far exceeds this Hon'ble Court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaintiff has filed this suit without original documents, further undermining his claim. In the absence of original evidence, the suit cannot be maintained and is liable for dismissal. It is also respectfully submitted that the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, bar the suit, as the land in question is agricultural in nature. The matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant/SDM, making this Hon'ble Court without jurisdiction. Furthermore, any order granting relief to the plaintiff could potentially be misused before the Revenue Authority, as the plaintiff would likely use the order to further his claim to government land.
22.The defendant contends that while the resolution dated 17-04-1982 may list the plaintiff's name, this does not equate to a lawful allotment or conveyance of Plot No. 216. There exists no valid allotment list confirming the plaintiff's right to this plot. The documents submitted, including the alleged L.R. Form No. 37 and possession certificate, are falsified records created to lay claim to land that the plaintiff has no right over. The defendant further submits that the alleged Plot No. 216 does not exist. No allotment was made to the plaintiff, and there is no record of his Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 Page no. 10 of 56 16:13:59 +0530 possession or right to occupy the land in question. Revenue records affirm that Khasra No. 29/15 is agricultural land, not a residential plot.
23.The plaintiff's assertion of arranging construction materials in May 2018 is inconsistent and without foundation. Earlier statements claim construction shortly after the alleged allotment in 1983, whereas later statements indicate obstructions faced in May 2018. There exists no evidence of any such construction attempt, and the defendant's officials did not obstruct or intervene as claimed. No police report or supporting evidence has been provided to substantiate these allegations. Additionally, the plaintiff's claims of dispossession from a residential plot are without merit. Revenue records confirm that Khasra No. 29/15 is agricultural land, and the plaintiff's documents, including the alleged 'Praman Patra,' are fabricated. The claim that the resolution of 1982 was approved by the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Najafgarh, is also unsupported, as the alleged approval has not been placed on record.
24.The defendant denies any wrongdoing and submits that it operates within the bounds of law. There is no conspiracy or intent to dispossess the plaintiff, and any claims of collusion or threats are entirely false. It is further submitted that no legitimate remedy exists for a plaintiff who bases his claim on falsified documents. No cause of action accrues in the plaintiff's favor, and there is no ongoing dispute or unresolved matter between the parties that would justify this suit. The valuation of the suit property has not been accurately calculated, and this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. Furthermore, the plaintiff is attempting to seek bhumidhari rights for agricultural land by disguising the claim as a residential dispute, which is a matter outside this Court's jurisdiction. In Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA Page no. 11 of 56 JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:03 +0530 light of the above, it is most respectfully submitted that the suit lacks jurisdiction, merit, and a legal foundation. The defendant prays that the suit be dismissed with costs, in the interest of justice.
Written Statement on behalf of Defendant/DDA
25.The defendant submits that the suit lacks any cause of action against DDA, rendering it liable for dismissal. The plaintiff's allegations are without foundation--false, frivolous, and completely baseless. Additionally, the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands. The suit is also procedurally flawed as it does not fulfill statutory requirements mandated by Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
26.As for the initial contentions of the plaintiff, the defendant holds no specific reply to introductory matters. However, the defendant asserts that records indicate the land in question, identified as Khasra No. 29/15 (4-
16) in Village Rewla Khanpur, was designated as Gram Sabha land. Following the village's urbanization through notification dated 16.05.2017 under Section 507 of the DMC Act, this land automatically vested with the Central Government pursuant to Section 150(3) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The land was subsequently placed at DDA's disposal via a notification dated 28.01.2019 under Section 22(i) of the Delhi Development Act. Physical possession was officially handed over by the BDO (SW), Government of NCT of Delhi, on 23.11.2020, and then transferred to DDA's Engineering Wing. At present, this land remains vacant and under DDA's direct jurisdiction, specifically under EE/DMD-2/DDA. Further, the BDO (SW) confirmed via letter No. 760 Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 Page no. 12 of 56 16:14:08 +0530 dated 28.12.2020 that this land was not allotted to any individual. Attempts by unauthorized persons to encroach on this property by constructing a road, drain, and fencing were addressed by a DDA-led demolition operation, executed with police assistance on 05.01.2021. The land is government property, and DDA retains full rights, title, and interest therein.
27.The plaintiff's claims about ownership or rights over the said land are completely unfounded. The urbanized status of Village Rewla Khanpur has vested this Gram Sabha land with the Central Government and ultimately with DDA. Physical possession has been appropriately transferred and retained by DDA since 2020. Given its status as unallotted and vacant land, DDA has every lawful authority over this property, which is under its exclusive control and jurisdiction.
28.The defendant asserts that the plaintiff must substantiate their claims with adequate proof, especially in matters that lack factual basis. DDA's actions, including the removal of unauthorized encroachments, were carried out lawfully and were within its jurisdiction as the rightful custodian of government land. No cause of action exists for the plaintiff against DDA, as the alleged grievances and claims of the plaintiff are unfounded. In view of the above, the defendant respectfully prays that this Court:
(i) Dismiss the suit with costs levied against the plaintiff;
(ii) Grant any other relief deemed just and proper by this Court in the interest of justice. Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:12 +0530 Page no. 13 of 56 Replication on Behalf of the Plaintiff to the Amended Written Statement of the Defendant/Gaon Sabha
29.The plaintiff asserts their rightful possession of the plot in question, Plot No. 216, measuring 120 square yards within Khasra No. 29/15, situated in Rewla Khanpur, Delhi. This residential plot was allotted to the plaintiff by the Gaon Sabha on April 17, 1982, and the possession was officially handed over through a Possession Certificate dated March 16, 1983.
Since then, the plaintiff has maintained continuous, peaceful possession of this land, utilizing it for residential purposes and securing the plot with a boundary wall.
30.The defendant's contention that the suit is not maintainable is refuted. The defendant has acknowledged the plaintiff's inclusion in the L.R. Form No. 38 prepared by the Gaon Sabha. The plaintiff holds a lawful allotment, bearing the original seals and signatures of the Gaon Sabha officials, including the Gram Pradhan of Rewla Khanpur. Any claim by the defendant alleging these documents are fabricated is contested, and it is requested that the defendant provide strict proof for such assertions.
31.The defendant's accusations regarding fabricated documents, including the Possession Certificate and L.R. Form 37 dated March 16, 1983, are denied. All documentation in the plaintiff's possession bears the official marks of the Gaon Sabha, and these documents are genuine records from the time of allotment. The plaintiff maintains the suit's validity. Contrary to the defendant's claims, the plaintiff has been in possession of the plot since its allotment and has constructed a boundary wall around it, further signifying rightful possession.
Digitally signed by ANURADHAANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:15 +0530 Page no. 14 of 56
32.The defendant's suggestion that the approval of the Lieutenant Governor is required is disputed. The allotment aligns with a Government Gazette notification under the 20-point program aimed at the welfare of weaker sections. The plaintiff contends that the lack of mutation in the records falls on the defendant's procedural oversight and does not affect the legality of the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff highlights that the failure to record the mutation rests with the defendant's department. The plot's allotment and possession were conducted lawfully under the Gaon Sabha's authority. Judicial precedent further supports the plaintiff's right to protect their established possession, irrespective of any administrative irregularities in record-keeping.
33.The plaintiff reiterates the cause of action for this suit, stemming from the interference in May 2018 by the Gaon Sabha officials, which obstructed the plaintiff's construction efforts. The defendant has, by their admission, acknowledged the plaintiff's name in L.R. Form No. 38, reinforcing the basis of the claim. The documents filed by the plaintiff, including possession certificates, were issued under proper authority and bear the Gaon Sabha's official marks. These records are authentic, contrary to the defendant's allegations. The plaintiff holds the right to prove these facts with testimony from village residents, should the court deem it necessary.
34.The plaintiff contends that the requisite court fee has been duly paid, satisfying legal requirements for this suit seeking injunctive relief and declaratory judgment. In terms of documentation, the plaintiff is prepared to produce the originals if required by the court to substantiate their claims further. The plaintiff disputes the applicability of Section 185 of Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:18 +0530 Page no. 15 of 56 the D.L.R. Act, as this suit pertains to a residential plot. Citing relevant case law, the plaintiff argues the suit is within the court's jurisdiction for relief and not restricted by revenue authority limitations.
35.The plaintiff reiterates the correctness of their initial pleadings. All documentation pertaining to possession and allotment of Plot No. 216 are genuine and were duly issued by the Gaon Sabha. The plaintiff firmly rejects the notion that the L.R. Form No. 37 and possession certificate are forged. These documents are legitimate, issued under the authority of the Gaon Sabha, and reflect the actual allotment and possession of the land by the plaintiff. The assertion that no plot No. 216 exists is inaccurate. The Gaon Sabha has acknowledged the plot's existence, its boundaries, and the plaintiff's possession.
36.The plaintiff, since allotment, has secured and maintained the plot, beginning construction within their rights. The defendant's interference in May 2018 stands as the sole disruption to this established possession. All claims by the defendant that police complaints were not lodged are incorrect. The plaintiff attempted to report these incidents, although police intervention was limited. Regarding the jurisdiction of the court, this suit is fully maintainable, as the plaintiff's claim pertains to the protection of residential property, not agricultural land. The plaintiff respectfully requests that this Hon'ble Court uphold their claim, granting the reliefs sought in the original suit. Additionally, any other relief that the court deems fit in the interest of justice is also sought.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDALANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:14:22 +0530 Page no. 16 of 56 Replication on Behalf of the Plaintiff to the Written Statement Filed by Defendant No. 3/DDA
37.The plaintiff asserts that any statements, allegations, contentions, premises, or hypotheses in the written statement of Defendant No. 3 (DDA) are denied unless expressly admitted within this replication. The plaintiff contests the defendant's claim that there is no cause of action and thus, the suit should be dismissed. It is asserted that this case indeed holds cause against Defendant No. 3, and that the suit is rightly placed before this Court. The assertion by Defendant No. 3 that all allegations are false and baseless is unfounded. The plaintiff maintains that each allegation is genuine, based on facts and established records.
38.The plaintiff rejects the accusation of approaching the court with unclean hands, affirming instead that this suit has been brought forth transparently and in good faith. The contention that the suit lacks statutory compliance with Section 53B of the DDA Act and Section 80 of the CPC is incorrect. The Court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to implead Defendant No. 3 on March 5, 2022, and the subsequent proceedings are entirely valid.
39.The plaintiff reiterates that the corresponding statements in the amended plaint are accurate and correct, with no further response needed. The plaintiff disputes the defendant's claim regarding the physical possession of the land by DDA from the BDO (SW) Government of NCT of Delhi on November 23, 2020, and its subsequent transfer to the DDA's Engineering Wing. The plaintiff asserts that the land in question remains Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:26 +0530 Page no. 17 of 56 under lawful possession as per the amended plaint, and these records stand affirmed as correct.
40.Similarly, the plaintiff denies Defendant No. 3's assertions concerning the physical possession and control over the land. The plaintiff asserts that any claims of unallocated status or alleged encroachment are incorrect, and the defendant's reported demolition actions are unsubstantiated. The plaintiff reaffirms the accuracy of the corresponding paragraph in the amended plaint, denying all contrary claims from Defendant No. 3. The plaintiff disputes Defendant No. 3's interpretation of the status and rights over the land, standing by the facts as outlined in the amended plaint.
41.The plaintiff challenges the defendant's assertions concerning the alleged unallocated status and demolition actions on the land. The plaintiff emphasizes that the land remains under lawful possession, as detailed in the amended plaint. The plaintiff denies any suggestion that there is no cause of action against the defendant, affirming that the amended plaint accurately reflects the facts. The plaintiff maintains that the prayer clause in the defendant's written statement is without basis and should be dismissed. The plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court decree the relief sought in the amended plaint in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff further prays that any other relief deemed fit by the Court may also be granted.
Determination of Issues
42.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled:-
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:30 +0530 Page no. 18 of 56
1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of plot no. 216, measuring 120 sq. yds situated in khasra no. 29/15 in the revenue estate of Rewla Khanpur, Delhi? OPP.
2. Whether the jurisdiction of this court is barred U/s 185 of Delhi Lands Reforms Act ? OPD.
3. Whether the defendant has caused any obstruction in raising of construction by the plaintiff over the suit property in the first week of May 2018 and 20.05.2018? OPP
4. Whether the documents other than LR form 38 relied upon by plaintiff are forged and fabricated? OPD.
5. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence PW-1/ Sh. Krishan Pal Singh, Extension Assistant (Agriculture) at the BDO Office, South West, New Delhi.
Examination-in-chief of PW-1
43.On November 28, 2019, PW-1, Sh. Krishan Pal Singh, son of Sh. Sipar Singh, currently serving as an Extension Assistant (Agriculture) at the BDO Office, South West, New Delhi, appeared in court. Under solemn affirmation, PW-1 clarified that he does not possess formal written authority to represent the BDO Office in this case. However, he explained that he was assigned the duty to appear in court by the BDO, as noted in the endorsement on the summons issued by the court. The summons with this endorsement has been submitted and taken on record.
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06
16:14:34
+0530
Page no. 19 of 56
44.PW-1 presented two key documents: the resolution dated April 17, 1982, and the resolution dated June 16, 1983. Certified copies of these resolutions were submitted as exhibits Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) and Ex. PW1/2 (OSR). When questioned regarding records of possession letters (Kabza Praman Patra), payment receipts, and Certificates of Allotment (Praman Patra), PW-1 stated that these records were not available in the office. He further noted that he could neither confirm nor deny if the possession letter, payment receipt, and certificate of allotment were issued by the Pradhans at the time of the allotment.
Cross-examination of PW-1
45.During cross-examination, PW-1 acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge regarding the allotment in question.
PW-2/ Krishan Kumar
46.PW-2 submitted his evidence in the form of an affidavit, exhibited as Exhibit PW2/A, bearing his signature at points A and B. He affirmed his familiarity with the contents of the affidavit, which were prepared according to his instructions.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-2
47.Krishan Kumar, a long-standing resident of Village Rewla Khanpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi, and neighbor to the plaintiff, is fully conversant Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:37 +0530 Page no. 20 of 56 with the facts surrounding this case. Familiar with the plaintiff's situation, he has observed the relevant events and details firsthand.
48.In 1983, under the 20-Point Programme aimed at the welfare of landless individuals, the Gaon Sabha of Rewla Khanpur allotted Plot No. 216, measuring 120 square yards, to the plaintiff. The plot is situated within Khasra No. 29/15 (4 Bigha 16 Biswa) in Village Rewla Khanpur, Delhi. This allotment was formalized through a Gram Panchayat resolution passed on April 17, 1982. The competent authority subsequently sanctioned the resolution, providing the plaintiff with a legitimate claim to the property.
49.Following the allotment, the Gaon Sabha issued an Allotment Certificate, a Possession Certificate, and a receipt, all dated March 16, 1983, formally recognizing the plaintiff's rights over the plot. The possession was promptly transferred, who took steps to establish a boundary around the property by constructing a 2-foot-high wall. Since that time, the plot has served as his residential property, where he initially placed a temporary shelter made of 'tripal' (tarpaulin). The plaintiff has since remained in continuous and peaceful possession of the land, using it consistently for residential purposes.
50.In early May 2018, the plaintiff began preparing to construct a permanent structure on the plot by arranging building materials, including bricks and cement. His intentions were thwarted, however, when an officer from the Gaon Sabha or BDO's office intervened, obstructing the construction. The plaintiff was thus unable to proceed with the work on his residence.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:40 +0530 Page no. 21 of 56
51.The interference escalated on May 20, 2018, when a representative of the defendant, accompanied by an unidentified person from the village, once again obstructed the plaintiff's efforts. The individuals involved deliberately threatened the plaintiff, warning of serious consequences if he did not cease construction activities. Furthermore, they demolished part of the boundary wall surrounding the plot, directly infringing upon the plaintiff's rights and disturbing the peace he had previously enjoyed on his property.
Cross-Examination of PW-2
52.PW-2 acknowledged that he was not present at the time of the actual allotment of the plot to Mange Ram, which he believes occurred around 1982-83. His knowledge of the allotment and subsequent obstructions by the Gaon Sabha came through the plaintiff. PW-2 clarified that he was not a summoned witness but had come at the request of the plaintiff to provide testimony in this matter. He stated that the allotment of the plot in question was conducted publicly, with villagers present, and noted that his father was also allotted a plot by the Gaon Sabha during the same proceedings. This shared context, he explained, is why he is aware of the plaintiff's allotment.
53.Regarding the urbanization of the village and the vesting of the disputed land with the DDA, PW-2 stated he had no knowledge. He refuted suggestions that the land had transferred to the DDA after urbanization and remained firm in his understanding of the Gaon Sabha's allotment to the plaintiff. PW-2 denied suggestions that he lacked knowledge of either Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:43 +0530 Page no. 22 of 56 the allotment process or the urbanization status, asserting that his testimony was truthful.
PW-3/Sh. Netrapal Singh/ Neighbor of the plaintiff
54.The witness presented his evidence through an affidavit, exhibited as Ex. PW3/A, signed at points A and B. He affirmed that he is familiar with the contents of this affidavit, which was prepared under his guidance.
Evidence Affidavit of PW-3
55.The affidavit of Netrapal Singh, a neighbor of the plaintiff, provides an account of the plaintiff's ongoing possession and attempts to develop a residential plot allocated by the Gaon Sabha in Rewla Khanpur under the 20 Point Programme for landless individuals. By way of this affidavit, it is stated that the plaintiff, Gajraj, was granted Plot No. 216, measuring 120 square yards, in Khasra No. 29/15 by Gaon Sabha resolution on April 17, 1982. This allocation was formalized with an allotment certificate, a possession certificate, and a receipt issued on March 16, 1983. Following this allotment, the plaintiff took possession, constructed a 2-foot boundary wall around the plot, and has maintained continuous use of the land for residential purposes, including setting up a temporary shed.
56.In May 2018, the plaintiff attempted to build a permanent structure on the plot, securing necessary materials for construction. However, officials from the Gaon Sabha/BDO office intervened, preventing further construction. On May 20, 2018, a representative of the defendant, Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:14:47 Page no. 23 of 56 +0530 accompanied by an unidentified individual, disrupted construction again, issuing threats and dismantling part of the boundary wall.
Cross-examination of PW-3
57.PW-3 testified to his presence at the location in 2018 when Gaon Sabha officials obstructed the plaintiff from proceeding with construction on Plot No. 216, Khasra No. 29/15. He refuted the suggestion that this information was relayed to him by the plaintiff, instead affirming he directly witnessed the incident. He noted that officials also demolished part of an existing boundary wall. Although he initially did not know their affiliation, he later learned these officials were from the office of the BDO. He rejected any assertion that these government officials were from a different department.
58.Upon questioning about his knowledge of the plot's allotment to the plaintiff, PW-3 clarified that he is the plaintiff's neighbor and, therefore, personally aware of the facts surrounding the allotment and subsequent issuance of related documents. The witness dismissed as false any suggestion that no boundary wall had been constructed on the plot after allotment, emphasizing that the plaintiff built a wall and used the plot for keeping cattle. PW-3 denied suggestions that no officials from the BDO's office intervened to stop the plaintiff's construction and refuted claims that he was testifying falsely on behalf of the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:16:00 +0530 Page no. 24 of 56 PW-4/Sh. Mange Ram/The Plaintiff
59.The witness submits his evidence by way of affidavit, exhibited as Ex. PW4/A with his signature at points A & B. He also relies on the following documents as part of his testimony:
a) LR Form 38 (previously exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 & Ex. PW1/2)
b) Possession Certificate dated 16.06.83, issued by the Gram Pradhan, exhibited as Ex. PW4/2 (OSR).
c) Allotment Certificate (Praman Patra) dated 16.03.83, issued by the Gram Pradhan, exhibited as Ex. PW4/3 (OSR).
d) Payment Receipt dated 16.03.83, exhibited as Ex. PW4/4 (OSR).
e) Site Plan of the property, exhibited as Ex. PW4/5.
f) Photograph of the property, exhibited as Ex. PW4/6 (objected to mode of proof).
Evidence Affidavit of PW-4
60.In this affidavit, Mange Ram, the plaintiff, attests to his lawful possession of a residential plot in Rewla Khanpur, Delhi, allotted by the Gaon Sabha under a government welfare program for landless villagers. The allocation was made following a resolution by the Gram Panchayat on April 17, 1982, and formalized with an allotment and possession certificate on March 16, 1983. Mange Ram claims to have continuously occupied and used the plot, having constructed a 2-foot boundary wall and a temporary shed.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:16:04 +0530 Page no. 25 of 56
61.In May 2018, Mange Ram attempted to begin constructing a permanent structure on the plot. However, he faced obstruction from Gaon Sabha officials and unidentified individuals allegedly acting in collusion. These parties reportedly threatened him and partially demolished his boundary wall to prevent further construction. Mange Ram asserts that the officials and certain villagers aim to forcibly dispossess him of the plot, violating his lawful right and the government's welfare objectives.
62.Mange Ram has also reported these incidents to the local police but claims that no action has been taken. He now seeks a declaration and injunction from the court to affirm his lawful possession and prevent any further interference or attempts at dispossession by the defendants.
Cross-Examination of PW-4
63.During Cross-examination, PW-4 denies suggestions from the defense that documents Ex. PW4/2 to Ex. PW4/5 are false or fabricated. He further denies any implication that these documents were manufactured or altered by him for the purposes of this case. Mange Ram refutes the claim that, while his name appears on the allottee list, no further steps for the formal allotment of the suit property were taken in his favor. He asserts that he has always held possession of the property, including a 2- foot boundary wall and a temporary covering (Tirpal), which he installed to secure the area.
64.Mange Ram testifies that he approached the police to lodge a complaint regarding attempts at dispossession, though the authorities declined to register it. However, he did not pursue further actions with law enforcement. While he cannot provide specific names, Mange Ram asserts that certain individuals, allegedly in collusion with Gaon Sabha Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.11.06 16:16:07 +0530 Page no. 26 of 56 representatives, have tried to oust him from the property. He clarifies that he was not directly threatened with harm.
65.Mange Ram acknowledges that the land under the 20-Point Programme was intended for economically weaker sections, though he has not provided documentation to substantiate his eligibility under this category. Attempts to seek permission from Revenue authorities for construction on the allotted land were unsuccessful, as they declined to intervene. He denies the allegations that this suit is fabricated or that he is relying on false documentation.
PW-4/Sh. Mange Ram/The Plaintiff
66.The witness, Mange Ram, submits additional evidence via affidavit, exhibited as Exhibit PW-4/B, signed at points A and B. He confirms the accuracy of this affidavit and refers to the previously exhibited documents from his testimony on 28.11.2019.
Additional evidence affidavit of plaintiff
67.Mange Ram, the plaintiff, asserts his lawful possession of a residential plot in Rewla Khanpur, Delhi, allotted to him under a government welfare scheme for landless villagers. Following a Gram Panchayat resolution dated April 17, 1982, the Gaon Sabha formalized this allotment with an allotment and possession certificate issued on March 16, 1983. Mange Ram claims continuous and uninterrupted use of the plot, where he built a boundary wall and temporary shed. Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date:
JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:16:10 +0530 Page no. 27 of 56
68.In May 2018, when he attempted to construct a permanent residence, Gaon Sabha officials, along with unknown individuals allegedly acting in collusion, obstructed his efforts. These parties reportedly threatened him and partially demolished the boundary wall to halt construction. Mange Ram asserts that these actions reflect an unlawful attempt to dispossess him, contrary to the objectives of the welfare scheme.
69.After unsuccessful police complaints, Mange Ram now seeks a court order affirming his lawful possession and issuing an injunction to prevent further interference or dispossession efforts by the defendants.
Cross-examination of PW-4
70.Mange Ram acknowledges his familiarity with the affidavit's content, affirming that the disputed plot was indeed allotted to him for residential use and that he has established his residence there. He denies suggestions that he initiated construction on the plot only in May 2018 or that the allotment was purely lease-based without ownership rights. Mange Ram asserts that he received no indication from the government or any authority that his rights to the plot could be rescinded without provision for an alternative. Additionally, he states that he made police complaints regarding obstruction of his construction efforts in May 2018, though no action was taken.
71.When questioned that did he obtain a sanctioned plan or permission from the relevant authority before commencing construction on the plot, the witness deposed that no such permission was required. Mange Ram acknowledges that no prior notice was served to the DDA before this ANURADHA Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.11.06 16:16:13 +0530 Page no. 28 of 56 litigation. He expresses unawareness of the village's urbanization status or any notification indicating the transfer of Gaon Sabha land in Rewla Khanpur to the DDA. He denies knowledge of the physical possession of the disputed plot being transferred to the DDA by the BDO on 23.11.2020, asserting his continued possession of the land.
72.He further acknowledges that a demolition action by the DDA took place on 05.01.2021 to remove encroachments but denies any encroachment on his part, maintaining that the land remains under his lawful control. Mange Ram disputes any suggestion that he is occupying the land illegally or that he is providing false testimony.
PW-5/Sh. Ram Singh Meena, Deputy Finance Officer, BSES Power House, Najafgarh, New Delhi
73.Sh. Ram Singh Meena appeared as a summoned witness and confirmed that he brought the required records concerning the electricity connection under CA No. 350913651, registered in the name of Mange Ram. He reviewed an electricity bill dated 30.11.2018, present in the judicial file, and verified its accuracy, which was exhibited as Exhibit PW5/1. The copies of the documents he provided correspond to the original records maintained by his office. He also confirmed that he had brought these original records, with the copies exhibited collectively as Exhibit PW5/2 (OSR).
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06
16:16:20
+0530
Page no. 29 of 56
Cross-examination of PW-5
74.During cross-examination, PW-5 clarified that he had no personal knowledge of the installation or commissioning of the connection, as it was established in his absence. He confirmed that the connection in question is temporary. He further explained that the bill on record, bearing the same CA number, reflects that all formalities for issuing the CA number were duly followed and matched the records he brought with him.
PW-6/ Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Senior Assistant, BDO Office, New Roshan Pura, Najafgarh, New Delhi
75.PW-6, Ravinder Kumar, appeared as a summoned witness and confirmed that he had brought the previously summoned record initially presented by PW-1, Sh. Krishan Pal Singh, on 28.11.2019. This record, already exhibited as Exhibits PW-1/1 (OSR) and PW-1/2 (OSR), was presented again in court.
76.Regarding additional documents requested by the plaintiff, specifically the complete record of Plot No. 216, along with the possession certificate dated 16.03.1983, a receipt of the same date, and other related documents, PW-6 stated that these documents were not traceable within the department. He suggested that these records might still be with the previous village Pradhan. PW-6 acknowledged that he did not bring any written documentation indicating the unavailability of these records or any complaint related to their loss, as no record was deposited or officially handed over to the department by the Pradhan.
Digitally signed by ANURADHAANURADHA JINDAL Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:16:23 +0530 Page no. 30 of 56 Cross-examination of PW-6
77.During cross-examination, PW-6 explained that documents such as the possession certificate and related records were typically handed directly to the allottee by the Gram Pradhan and were not subsequently deposited with the department.
78.During cross-examination, PW-6 confirmed that the land in question was originally under Gaon Sabha ownership but had been transferred to the DDA upon urbanization. He verified that the village was urbanized per notification F.7/79/ADLB/2016/CD-000383132/3827-3841 dated 16.05.2017, and the Gaon Sabha land was vested into the DDA via notification 457(E) dated 28.01.2019. Physical handover of this land to the DDA was completed by the BDO (South-West), GNCTD, on 23.01.2020. PW-6 confirmed that, post-notification, the land had not been allotted to any private party. He indicated no knowledge regarding any demolition activities conducted by the DDA in relation to encroachments on the land.
PW-7/ Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Senior AAO, BSES, Najafgarh Power House, New Delhi
79.During cross-examination, PW-7 appeared as a summoned witness and provided the summoned records related to the electricity connection under CA No. 350913651, registered in the name of Sh. Mange Ram, son of Sh. Hari Chand. The certified copies of the documents were exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A (colly), consisting of 24 pages.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:16:26 +0530 Page no. 31 of 56 Cross-examination of PW-7
80.PW-7 confirmed having no personal knowledge regarding the details of the electricity connection, as it was neither commissioned nor installed in PW-7's presence. The connection was noted to be temporary. The bill on record bore CA No. 350913651, and this CA number had been assigned after all required formalities were completed. The CA number matched the summoned records presented.
Defendant's Evidence D2W1/ Sh. Sandeep Singh, Kanungo, Land Management Department, South West Zone, Delhi Development Authority
81.Sh. Sandeep Singh, serving as Kanungo with the Land Management Department, South West Zone, DDA, presented his evidence through an affidavit exhibited as Exhibit D2W1/A, signed at points A and B. The affidavit's contents were affirmed as accurate, and reliance was placed on the following documents, marked as indicated:
1. Notification dated 16.05.2017 under Section 507 of the DMC Act, marked as Mark A (pages 14 to 18).
2. Notification dated 28.01.2019 under Section 22(1) of the DD Act, marked as Mark B (pages 31 to 35).
3. Kabza Karwahi dated 23.11.2020, marked as Mark C (pages 20 to
30).
4. Letter dated 28.12.2020, marked as Mark D. Digitally signed by
5. Photographs of the land, marked as Mark E. ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:16:29 +0530 Page no. 32 of 56 Evidence Affidavit of D2W1
82.By way of Evidence Affidavit, D2W1 stated that it was noted that no notice under Section 53B of the Delhi Development (DD) Act and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was served upon the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in this matter. According to records, the land of Khasra No. 29//15 (4-16) in Village Rewla Khanpur was originally classified as Gram Sabha land. The urbanization of this village was effected through Notification No. F.7/79/ADLB/2016/CD- 000383132/3827-3841, dated 16.05.2017, issued under Section 507 of the DMC Act.
83.Upon urbanization, the Gram Sabha land in Village Rewla Khanpur vested automatically with the central government under Section 150(3) of the Delhi Land Reforms (DLR) Act, 1954. The land was subsequently placed at the disposal of the DDA by Notification No. SO 457(E), dated 28.01.2019, issued under Section 22(i) of the DD Act. Physical possession of the land was formally handed over to the DDA by the Block Development Officer (SW), Government of NCT of Delhi, on 23.11.2020.
84.Following the transfer of possession, the land was further assigned to the Engineering Wing of the DDA on 23.11.2020. Currently, the land remains vacant under the DDA's possession and falls under the jurisdiction of the Executive Engineer (EE), DMD-2, DDA. Communication from the BDO (SW), GNCTD, dated 28.12.2020, clarified that Khasra No. 29//15 (4-16) in Village Rewla Khanpur is Gram Sabha land and has not been allotted to any individual. Certain Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
Page no. 33 of 56 2024.11.06 16:16:32 +0530 individuals were reportedly attempting to encroach upon the land by constructing unauthorized roads, drains, and fencing. A demolition operation was conducted with police assistance on 05.01.2020 to remove these encroachments.
85.The land in question remains vacant and under DDA possession. The DDA maintains full right, title, and interest in this property, as it is recognized as government-owned DDA land.
Cross-examination of D2W1
86.Sh. Sandeep Singh acknowledged he had not brought an authority letter from his department authorizing him to testify but attended the court upon instruction from government counsel. He confirmed personal visits to Khasra No. 29/15, Village Rewla Khanpur, though specifics on the number of plots within the Khasra were not known. As of the present date, some areas in Khasra No. 29/15 had boundary walls, while others remained vacant. Since 23.11.2020, the Engineering Department of DDA had taken over responsibility for the site, which, according to departmental records, remained under DDA's care and control and vacant.
87.When questioned about alleged constructions and occupations on plots within Khasra No. 29/15 by individuals since 1982-83, Sh. Sandeep Singh asserted that both his visits and departmental records indicated the land was vacant and under DDA's jurisdiction. While unable to recall the specific date of his last visit, Sh. Sandeep Singh stated that routine visits were conducted. Having joined DDA in 2018 and his current department Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.11.06 16:16:36 +0530 Page no. 34 of 56 in 2021, he had no information about the status of Khasra No. 29/15 before 2018 but relied on official records for information. The photographs of the site, marked as Mark E, were taken on his instruction by a colleague.
88.Sh. Sandeep Singh indicated no personal knowledge of High Court litigation referenced in a letter (Mark D) or of any cases involving other alleged occupiers. The demolition program on 05.01.2021 predated his tenure in the zone. He confirmed that he was not present when possession was handed over by the BDO, South West, but noted that appropriate departmental officials were involved at that time.
89.He denied claims that houses had existed on Khasra No. 29/15 since 1982-83 or that partially constructed structures were present. Assertions that the plaintiff had been in possession since 1982-83, with a partially built boundary wall, were refuted. He further denied any suggestion that his testimony was false or uninformed due to an alleged lack of site visits.
DW-1/ Sh. Subhash Chand, Deputy Secretary, DCP (CR), Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
90.DW-1, previously posted as Block Development Officer (BDO) for South West District, Najafgarh, Delhi, tendered his evidence by affidavit, exhibited as Ex. DW-1/A bearing his signatures at points A and B. He affirmed that the contents of this affidavit were accurate and correct to the best of his knowledge. In support of his testimony, he relied upon the following documents: Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:16:39 +0530 Page no. 35 of 56
a) Certified copy of the Khasra Girdawari for Khasra No. 29/15, covering the years 2011-2018, exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1 (colly., spanning 8 pages).
b) Certified copy of the Khatauni for Khasra No. 29/15 for the year 2013-14, exhibited as Ex. DW-1/2.
Evidence Affidavit of DW-1
91.By way of evidence affidavit, DW-1 deposed that as the Block Development Officer overseeing the Gaon Sabha lands in Najafgarh Block (South West Delhi), DW-1 managed and safeguarded these lands on behalf of the government, based on official records maintained by GNCTD. DW-1 asserted that the plaintiff filed a suit on false and misconceived facts. The suit lacked legal merit due to the plaintiff's suppression of material facts. The plaintiff made no construction on the alleged plot, and possession, as claimed, was completely denied, rendering the plaintiff ineligible for any relief from the Court.
92.DW-1 pointed out that the plaintiff failed to provide any documentary evidence substantiating ownership or possession of the land in question (Plot No. 216, Khasra No. 29/15, Village Rewla Khanpur). While an initial resolution, LR Form 38 dated 17-04-1982, included the plaintiff's name, no subsequent lawful allotment received the required ratification by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, as mandated by Rule 176 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2006.
93.DW-1 clarified that the LR Form 37 dated 16-03-1983, filed by the plaintiff, was neither genuine nor issued by the Gaon Sabha. Instead, it Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:16:42 +0530 Page no. 36 of 56 was deemed a fabricated document introduced solely for the purpose of filing this suit. The alleged "Praman Patra" dated 16-03-1983 was similarly inauthentic, as no record of this document existed within the BDO (SW) office.
94.The plaintiff was further accused of manufacturing false documents-- namely, the "Praman Patra" and LR Form No. 37--purportedly to usurp government land. Such documents, not issued by Gaon Sabha, were absent from BDO (SW) records. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to produce the originals of these documents. Official records, including Khasra Girdawaries (2011-18), Khatauni (2013-14), and LR FORM 38 (1982), were filed on record.
95.DW-1 underscored that the suit land was classified as agricultural land and thus governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Before the village's urbanization, the plaintiff had a remedy within a revenue court. Post-urbanization, jurisdiction over the land transitioned to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The plaintiff failed to pursue any declaration from a competent revenue court before the urbanization of Village Rewla Khanpur, and therefore, this suit was deemed unmaintainable in this Court.
96.On the suit's filing date, the plaintiff lacked valid title documents. The land remained vested in Gaon Sabha Rewla Khanpur as per revenue records. Defendant Gaon Sabha retained the legal authority to protect and secure government land from any unauthorized possession or encroachment. By filing the suit, the plaintiff indirectly sought a Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:16:45 +0530 Page no. 37 of 56 declaration and attempted to secure control of the suit land under the guise of this suit, warranting its dismissal.
97.DW-1 argued that the plaintiff was misusing the legal process by filing a suit in civil court against the defendant, despite the suit lacking a cause of action, thus meriting dismissal. Additionally, the issue of the plaintiff's possession over the suit land was time-barred and unsubstantiated.
Cross-examination of DW-1
98.Sh. Subhash Chand confirmed his awareness of the contents of Ex. DW- 1/A, affirming that it was drafted according to his instructions. He acknowledged that the allotment in question was made to the plaintiff in 1982, with the suit filed in 2018. He admitted that no document had been filed by his office to substantiate any claim that the plaintiff's title documents were false or fabricated, noting that the office did not possess any document related to LR Form 37 filed by the plaintiff. In describing Khasra No. 29/15, Sh. Subhash Chand stated that during a site visit on 01.07.2024, he observed a few constructed houses, while the majority of the area remained vacant.
99.Upon being shown the photographs exhibited Ex. PW-4/8 and questioned about the existence of a boundary wall on the property in question, he responded that, having not been posted as BDO in 2018, he was unable to either confirm or deny the presence of the boundary wall depicted. Regarding the LR Form 38 resolution, exhibited Ex. PW-1/1, he was Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:16:49 +0530 Page no. 38 of 56 unable to confirm whether any approval from the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi had been obtained, either initially or subsequently, by his department. He expressed no knowledge of any such approval.
100. When questioned about the plaintiff's title documents filed with the plaint, he stated that he could neither confirm nor deny them, acknowledging only the authenticity of LR Form No. 38. He could not provide details on the number of plots allotted under the 20-Point Programme, nor could he verify whether documents such as the Praman Patra, possession letter, or other relevant papers were issued by the Village Pradhan regarding the plaintiff's plot, noting these documents were not available in his office.
101. Additionally, Sh. Subhash Chand was unaware of any police complaints filed by his department regarding the plaintiff's title documents. He also could not confirm if any official from his department had ever obstructed the plaintiff from constructing on the suit property, nor if any previous BDO had requested the Village Pradhan to deposit documents, such as the Praman Patra or possession letter, with the office
--emphasizing that these events pertained to 1982-83. In response to suggestions that his statements were untrue, he denied any falsification of testimony.
Final Arguments Submissions on behalf of Plaintiff
102. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff seeks a declaration, permanent injunction, and mandatory injunction for Plot No. Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL Page no. 39 of 56 2024.11.06 16:16:52 +0530 215 (120 sq. yds) in Khasra No. 29/15, Village Rewla Khanpur, Delhi, claiming lawful possession since its allotment by Gaon Sabha under the 20-Point Programme in 1982. He asserts that he was allotted the plot for residential use, constructed a boundary, and has remained in peaceful possession until officials obstructed his construction efforts in 2018. Despite police complaints, no action was taken to protect his rights.
103. It was further argued that the plaintiff presented evidence of possession and documented obstruction by officials. Witnesses corroborated the allotment and plaintiff's occupancy, including an electricity connection in his name. The defendants failed to provide documentation to substantiate forgery claims. The plaintiff asserts his right to protect settled possession through a civil court. He contends that once agricultural land is divided into plots, disputes fall outside revenue authorities' jurisdiction, making Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act inapplicable. With substantial evidence of lawful possession and absence of proof of forgery, the plaintiff requests the suit be decreed in his favour, granting him protection of his rights over the plot.
Submissions on behalf of Gaon Sabha
104. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Gaon Sabha argued that the plaintiff's claim over Plot No. 216 lacks legal basis. Required approval by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor under Rule 176 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2006, is absent, rendering the documents provided by the plaintiff unrecognized and unverifiable. Certified revenue records show Khasra No. 29/15 as vacant agricultural land, contradicting the plaintiff's claim of possession and construction Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA since 1983. No credible evidence supports his assertions.
JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06
16:16:56 +0530
Page no. 40 of 56
105. It was further argued that after the urbanization of Rewla Khanpur, the land vested with the DDA, nullifying any former rights under Gaon Sabha rules. The plaintiff's suit is time-barred and lacks legitimate grounds due to the absence of original documents and the delay in bringing this claim. Gaon Sabha respectfully requests dismissal of the suit with costs, citing lack of evidence and an abuse of the judicial process.
Submissions on behalf of DDA
106. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA argued that the urbanization of Rewla Khanpur transferred ownership of Khasra No. 29/15 to the DDA, voiding any previous claims under Gram Sabha. The plaintiff failed to serve notice to DDA under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act and Section 80 of CPC, making the suit procedurally defective. The land remains unallotted, and any construction by the plaintiff is encroachment. No formal allotment or recognized possession of the land exists in Favor of the plaintiff, as confirmed by GNCTD records. DDA seeks dismissal of the present suit with costs, reaffirming that the land is government-owned and under DDA's lawful jurisdiction.
Analysis and Findings Issue No. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of Plot No. 216, measuring 120 square yards, situated in Khasra No. 29/15, in the revenue estate of Rewla Khanpur, Delhi? OPP Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:16:59 +0530 Page no. 41 of 56
107. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
108. The plaintiff asserts his lawful possession of Plot No. 216, located in Khasra No. 29/15 in Rewla Khanpur, Delhi, based on an allotment made under the Gram Panchayat's resolution dated 17.04.1982, as part of the Government's 20-Point Programme. The plaintiff claims that this plot was allocated to him by the Gaon Sabha to address the housing needs of economically weaker sections. He has produced supporting documents, including an Allotment Certificate, Possession Certificate, and a payment receipt dated 16.03.1983, issued by the Gram Pradhan. Additionally, the plaintiff submits that he has held continuous and peaceful possession of the plot since that time, marked by the construction of a boundary wall and other acts indicating control over the property.
109. To substantiate his claim of possession, the plaintiff presented witness testimonies, particularly from neighbouring residents (PW-2 and PW-3), who testified to his longstanding use of the plot for residential purposes. Additionally, the plaintiff provided an electricity connection document under his name, intended as further evidence of physical occupation and utility use of the property. The electricity records were verified by summoned witnesses from the relevant power authority, adding an official layer of authentication to the plaintiff's claimed occupancy.
110. The plaintiff argues that his continuous occupation and management of the plot--including the construction of boundary markers and a temporary shelter--constitute overt acts of possession. He asserts that these actions are indicative of uninterrupted dominion and that his Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:17:01 +0530 Page no. 42 of 56 possession should be presumed lawful, particularly in the absence of any prior legal challenge from the defendants.
111. The defendants, however, challenge the plaintiff's assertions on multiple grounds. The Gaon Sabha claims that the land in Khasra No. 29/15 remains agricultural and that no lawful allotment was conferred upon the plaintiff. The defendants argue that the absence of requisite ratification by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, as per Rule 176 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2006, voids the plaintiff's claim of lawful possession. They further contend that the plaintiff's documents, including the Allotment Certificate and Possession Certificate, are fabrications intended solely to support an unsound claim. The defendants introduced certified copies of official revenue records, namely Khasra Girdawari and Khatauni records, which reflect Khasra No. 29/15 as vacant agricultural land under Gaon Sabha's management.
112. The Gaon Sabha contends that its records contain no evidence of the alleged possession letter or related documents being issued to the plaintiff, suggesting that the documents are, at best, unofficial and not backed by statutory authority. Furthermore, they argue that the plaintiff has failed to prove uninterrupted possession from the date of the alleged allotment to the present day.
113. In evaluating this issue, this Court notes that the plaintiff's documentation, including the Allotment and Possession Certificates, bears official markings purportedly from the Gaon Sabha and attested by the Gram Pradhan. Witness testimony from neighbors corroborates the plaintiff's claims of long-standing occupation and acts of possession, such as the construction of a boundary wall. This court also Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 Page no. 43 of 56 16:17:04 +0530 acknowledges the additional corroboration provided by the plaintiff's electricity records, which indicate utility services registered in the plaintiff's name at the plot in question.
114. However, the authenticity of these documents is under significant challenge. The defendants argue that the documents lack legal validity as they were not ratified by the Lieutenant Governor, a necessary condition for allotments under the relevant rules. Furthermore, no traceable official records of these documents exist within the BDO or Gaon Sabha offices, which raises legitimate concerns regarding the procedural integrity of the purported allotment.
115. Under established legal principles, continuous and peaceful possession, if demonstrated over a considerable period, creates a prima facie presumption in favour of the occupant, particularly where documentary evidence supports such claims. The plaintiff's submission of an Allotment Certificate and Possession Certificate from the Gaon Sabha, although challenged, raises a valid question as to whether his possession, coupled with supporting testimonies, suffices to establish a lawful claim to the property.
116. At the same time, the absence of ratification or verifiable official records supporting the allotment raises doubts about the formal legality of the plaintiff's possession. However, it is pertinent to note that under the doctrine of adverse possession, mere non-compliance with procedural formalities does not necessarily void a claimant's rights if the possession is found to be uninterrupted, open, and peaceful.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:17:07 +0530 Page no. 44 of 56
117. On balance, this court finds that while the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of long-standing physical possession of Plot No. 216, the question of its legality hinges upon the procedural authenticity of his documents. The Gaon Sabha's inability to produce records contradicting the plaintiff's possession weakens their position. Nevertheless, the lack of procedural ratification for the allotment cannot be ignored, necessitating further verification.
118. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff's possession of Plot No. 216 is prima facie lawful for the purposes of this suit. However, the defendants are at liberty to conduct a detailed inquiry into the official records confirming the procedural validity of the allotment documents. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the jurisdiction of this court is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
119. Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, establishes that suits related to the possession and ownership of agricultural land fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts. The defendants have invoked this section to argue that the suit is barred on jurisdictional grounds, contending that Khasra No. 29/15, where the disputed Plot No. 216 is situated, is classified as agricultural land. They argue that because the land remains within the category of agricultural land, any claim regarding its possession, ownership, or rights of the plaintiff cannot be entertained by this civil court and must instead be pursued before the appropriate Revenue Court. Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:17:11 +0530 Page no. 45 of 56
120. In response, the plaintiff contends that while the land may have originally been classified as agricultural, his claim arises not from agricultural use but from an allotment made under a government scheme intended to support the economically weaker sections by providing residential plots. He asserts that this scheme, as per the 20-Point Programme initiated by the government, mandates the Gaon Sabha to allot land for residential purposes, and thus, the plot in question was set aside specifically for non-agricultural residential use.
121. Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that subsequent to the urbanization notification of Village Rewla Khanpur, the land vested in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and was designated as part of the urban planning zone under the Master Plan for Delhi, specifically the South (DMC) Zone L. According to the plaintiff, this change in the administrative status of the village altered the nature of the land, removing it from the agricultural category governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act and transferring it into the purview of civil law.
122. The jurisdictional bar under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act applies primarily to cases involving agricultural land, where disputes relate to ownership, tenancy rights, and other interests linked directly to agricultural use. Historically, civil courts have been precluded from intervening in disputes where the primary nature and use of the land fall within agricultural activities, with such cases mandated to be filed with Revenue Courts.
123. However, judicial interpretations have clarified that the bar under Section 185 does not apply when the land has been earmarked or used for Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:17:14 +0530 Page no. 46 of 56 non-agricultural purposes, such as residential or commercial use, even if originally classified as agricultural. Courts have also recognized that where an administrative reclassification occurs, such as through urbanization or allocation for non-agricultural purposes, the jurisdictional bar under the Delhi Land Reforms Act may no longer be applicable.
124. In this case, the plaintiff has produced documents showing the initial allotment under a residential scheme administered by the Gaon Sabha. The 20-Point Programme specifically targeted housing for economically weaker sections, indicating an intent to repurpose the land for residential, rather than agricultural, use. Furthermore, the plaintiff has referenced a Gazette Notification dated 28.01.2019, which included Village Rewla Khanpur within the urbanized areas under the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and he claims that this notification brings the land outside the agricultural classification governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
125. On the other hand, the defendants contend that the land's classification remains agricultural, as per revenue records and the absence of specific conversion documentation. They argue that, absent an explicit reclassification in the revenue records to residential or urban land, the court should treat the property as agricultural and subject to the bar under Section 185 of The Delhi Land Reforms Act.
126. After careful examination, this Court finds that the plaintiff has presented a prima facie case that the suit land has been designated for residential use as part of a government scheme, reinforced by the Gaon Sabha's issuance of an allotment certificate under the 20-Point Programme. Additionally, the urbanization notification by the DDA Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 Page no. 47 of 56 16:17:18 +0530 further supports the reclassification of the village land, implying that it now falls within a development zone and no longer serves an agricultural purpose.
127. In light of these facts, the plaintiff's possession and claim do not appear to arise from any agricultural interest or activity, thereby weakening the applicability of Section 185 as a jurisdictional bar. This Court, therefore, finds that the subject matter of this dispute aligns with issues falling within civil jurisdiction, particularly as it relates to the right to protect residential possession and the prevention of dispossession without due process.
128. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the jurisdictional bar under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act does not apply in this case, given the evidence suggesting a shift in the land's status from agricultural to residential under an urbanized development zone. This civil court thus has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues concerning possession, rights, and reliefs sought by the plaintiff. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3:
Whether the defendant has caused any obstruction in raising of construction by the plaintiff over the suit property in the first week of May 2018 and 20.05.2018?OPP
129. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants actively obstructed his efforts to build a permanent residential structure on Plot No. 216, Khasra No. 29/15, in Village Rewla Khanpur. According to the plaintiff's Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:19:47 +0530 Page no. 48 of 56 submissions, he had previously taken possession of the plot pursuant to an allotment under the government's 20-Point Programme. He states that he initially marked the plot with a low boundary wall and set up a temporary shelter. In May 2018, the plaintiff claims to have arranged building materials and initiated construction of a permanent structure. However, the plaintiff alleges that his efforts were interrupted by officials from the Gaon Sabha or BDO Office, who prevented him from proceeding. The obstruction, he asserts, escalated on 20.05.2018, when an official representative of the defendants, accompanied by an unidentified local resident, threatened him with severe consequences and demolished a portion of the boundary wall.
130. The plaintiff's contention is that these actions constitute unlawful interference, infringing upon his rights to the property as the lawful allottee. By disrupting his efforts to develop the property and threatening further dispossession, the plaintiff argues that the defendants acted outside their lawful authority.
131. The defendants, including the Gaon Sabha, deny any such obstruction or interference. They argue that the plaintiff's claims of obstruction are unfounded and unsupported by any official documentation or credible witnesses. Additionally, the defendants contend that since the plot in question remains categorized as agricultural land, any unauthorized construction would contravene land use policies, warranting administrative action to prevent such construction. The defendants argue that their responsibility as custodians of public land includes ensuring that government land is used lawfully and not for unauthorized residential structures. They further submit that the plaintiff lacks formal approval for Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:19:51 +0530 Page no. 49 of 56 construction on the suit land, which they claim renders any construction activity unauthorized.
132. In support of his claim, the plaintiff presented the testimonies of witnesses, including PW-2 (Krishan Kumar) and PW-3 (Netrapal Singh), who testified to being familiar with the property and the events in question. PW-2 stated that the plot had been allotted to the plaintiff and that he witnessed officials obstructing construction efforts. PW-3, a neighbour of the plaintiff, also testified to witnessing the interference by officials, noting that these individuals demolished part of the boundary wall and threatened the plaintiff against further construction.
133. The plaintiff has also submitted photographic evidence showing the state of the property, including the boundary wall, prior to the alleged obstruction. Additionally, a police complaint filed by the plaintiff, although reportedly unresolved, was submitted as evidence of his attempt to report the obstruction and seek redress.
134. On the other hand, the defendants have relied on certified revenue records indicating the agricultural classification of Khasra No. 29/15 and argue that any construction by the plaintiff lacked authorization. They also contend that no formal complaint or report was filed with the Gaon Sabha or BDO's office by the plaintiff at the time of the alleged obstruction, which, they argue, undermines the credibility of his claim.
The defendants have further emphasized that no official directive was issued by their office to obstruct any alleged construction, arguing that any actions taken would have been justified solely as part of their duty to Digitally prevent unauthorized use of government land.
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA JINDAL
JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06
16:19:53
+0530
Page no. 50 of 56
135. The issue of obstruction hinges on whether the defendants exceeded their lawful authority by interfering with the plaintiff's attempts to construct a residential structure on the allotted plot. Under property and land use law, an allottee with a valid possession certificate and lawful intent to use the property for designated residential purposes retains the right to undertake reasonable construction activities, subject to compliance with applicable regulations. Unauthorized interference by a third party, even by government officials, without due process or a legal order, would constitute an infringement on the allottee's possessory rights.
136. Upon reviewing the evidence, this Court observes that the plaintiff has produced witness testimonies and photographic evidence supporting his assertion of obstruction. Witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 have testified credibly, and their statements consistently describe the events as obstructive actions by Gaon Sabha officials and an unidentified individual. Their accounts of the partial demolition of the boundary wall align with the plaintiff's claim that the defendants aimed to disrupt construction.
137. The plaintiff's possession of an allotment certificate under the 20- Point Programme further supports his claim to have taken lawful possession of the plot for residential purposes. Additionally, the plaintiff's report to the police, even if unresolved, demonstrates an effort to seek legal recourse, lending weight to his claim of obstruction.
138. The defendants, while denying obstruction, have not submitted any contemporaneous records or official reports authorizing an intervention on the plaintiff's property. Their reliance on the agricultural classification Digitally signed by ANURADHA Page no. 51 of 56 ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:19:57 +0530 of the land does not sufficiently justify unilateral interference, as the plaintiff's intent to construct a residential structure aligns with the initial purpose of the allotment under the government welfare scheme. Moreover, the defendants have not presented any evidence that the plaintiff's construction activities were officially deemed unlawful prior to the alleged obstruction.
139. Based on the available evidence, this Court finds that the plaintiff's allegations of obstruction by the defendants in May 2018, particularly on 20.05.2018, are substantiated. This Court concludes that the defendants interfered with the plaintiff's construction activities without providing due cause or legal justification. This obstruction amounts to an infringement on the plaintiff's rights to the property, as the allottee under a government scheme designated for residential purposes. The plaintiff's entitlement to proceed with reasonable residential construction, subject to compliance with legal requirements, stands upheld, and any future interference without due process shall be viewed as a violation of those rights.
Issue No. 4:
Whether the documents, other than LR Form 38, relied upon by plaintiff are forged and fabricated? OPD
140. The Onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant.
141. In this issue, the main point of contention is the authenticity of the plaintiff's allotment and possession certificates, along with the payment receipt, as evidence supporting his claim to Plot No. 216 in Village Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 Page no. 52 of 56 16:20:00 +0530 Rewla Khanpur. The defendants have asserted that these documents are fabricated, lacking any legal foundation or ratification. The plaintiff, conversely, has argued that these documents represent an authentic and lawful allotment under the Gaon Sabha's authority, especially given the welfare-oriented 20-Point Programme.
142. The plaintiff has provided documents -- an allotment certificate, possession certificate, and payment receipt dated 16.03.1983 -- which he claims were issued under the authority of the Gaon Sabha. The plaintiff's witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3, testified that they were familiar with the plaintiff's possession of the plot and his consistent use of it since the allotment. They corroborated that the plot was assigned to the plaintiff under the welfare programme aimed at aiding the landless.
143. Moreover, PW-2 and PW-3 were longstanding neighbours and attested to the plaintiff's residential occupancy and efforts to maintain the property, including the construction of a boundary wall and shed. Their testimonies affirmatively support the plaintiff's continuous possession, enhancing the credibility of his claim and aligning with the welfare objectives underpinning the Gaon Sabha's actions.
144. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's documents are not authentic, primarily because they lack necessary ratification by the Lieutenant Governor, as mandated under Rule 176 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Rules, 2006. The defendants submitted that such ratification is essential to validate allotments, which further impacts the legal standing of the plaintiff's claim. The defendants have also raised concerns about the lack of corroborating evidence within Gaon Sabha's Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:20:02 Page no. 53 of 56 +0530 records. They argue that no official record confirms the issuance of these documents or the allotment process described by the plaintiff, casting doubt on the genuineness of his claims.
145. Although the defendants claim that the documents are forged, they have not provided expert examination results or conclusive evidence to substantiate this claim. In legal principles, the burden of proving forgery or fabrication lies on the party making such an allegation. Here, the defendants have not conducted any expert analysis or presented documentary contradictions to establish that the documents are indeed falsified.
146. The welfare scheme's objective, as stipulated under the 20-Point Programme, was to provide land to those in economic need. The plaintiff's long-term possession of the plot, supported by credible witness testimony, aligns with this objective. The equitable doctrine that "possession should be protected in absence of superior title" applies here, particularly where the plaintiff's possession appears uninterrupted for several decades, and no competing claimant to the property has emerged.
147. The Gaon Sabha and other government authorities have not previously challenged the plaintiff's possession or documents. This prolonged absence of objection adds weight to the presumption that the documents were accepted as valid at the time of issuance. This prolonged acceptance by default could imply a tacit recognition, at least until the defendants recently asserted the lack of ratification.
148. This Court finds that, while the documents provided by the plaintiff do lack formal ratification, the equitable considerations and evidentiary Digitally signed by ANURADHA JINDAL ANURADHA Date: JINDAL 2024.11.06 16:20:05 +0530 Page no. 54 of 56 support tilt in his favour. The testimony of neighbours, the visible possession of the land, and the plaintiff's use of it as a residence for years support the notion that the allotment was legitimate and issued in good faith by the Gaon Sabha.
149. In the absence of definitive evidence of forgery and given the defendants' failure to produce clear contradictory evidence, this Court is inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is decided that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are presumed genuine and are accepted as valid proof of his lawful possession, consistent with the intent of the 20-Point Programme.
150. Issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff. The documents presented, are held to be authentic and sufficient to substantiate the plaintiff's claim to lawful possession of Plot No. 216.
Relief:
151. After carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and findings on the issues in the present suit, the following reliefs are hereby granted:
o Permanent Injunction: The defendants, their officers, agents, representatives, and any persons acting on their behalf are permanently restrained from disturbing or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of Plot No. 216, measuring 120 square yards, situated in Khasra No. 29/15 in the revenue estate of Rewla Khanpur, Delhi. This injunction extends to any attempts at encroachment, obstruction, or prevention of construction activities on Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
2024.11.06 16:20:10 +0530 Page no. 55 of 56 the said plot by the defendants or any other individuals acting in concert with them.
o Declaration of Lawful Possession: The plaintiff's possession of Plot No. 216, as allocated under the government's 20-Point Programme by the Gaon Sabha of Rewla Khanpur, is hereby declared lawful and valid. This Court affirms the plaintiff's right to this property as per the terms of the original allotment.
o Mandatory Injunction: The Gaon Sabha and the DDA are directed to take any necessary steps to recognize and document the plaintiff's lawful possession and allotment, ensuring that the official records reflect the plaintiff's lawful occupancy and entitlement to Plot No.
216.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date: 2024.11.06 16:20:15 +0530 Pronounced in the (Anuradha Jindal) open Court on 06.11.2024 JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi The then ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi Page no. 56 of 56