Delhi District Court
Gurjit Singh vs Dda on 3 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PANDEY, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ
(WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No.607133/2016
CNR no.DLWT03-000006-1997
Shri Gurjit Singh, Deceased through LRs
a. Balbir Singh-son
b. Pritam Kaur-widow
c. Baljit Kaur
All R/o 161, Block-A-2, Bhagat colony,
Burari, Sant Nagar,
Delhi. ...Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
Shri Vikas Sadan?Vikas Miner,
New Delhi.
2. Shri Anil Kumar Jain
S/o Late Shri Mahabir Parshad
R/o House No.61, Gali Khajanchi,
Chandini Chowk,
Delhi-110094 ...Defendants
Date of Institution : 14.07.1983
Date of final arguments : 24.12.2024
Date of decision : 22.02.2025
Decision : DISMISSED
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
PLAINT Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 1 /37
1. In brief it is the case of the plaintiff as per plaint that he is a tenant and thus in lawful possession of the shop no. 2 (between H.P and Caltex Petrol Pump) known as M/s Dashnmesh Automobiles situated in Khasra no. 403/90/1 at Azadpur, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 34/- for the last about 20 years since 1955 and defendant no. 3 is the landlord of the same. The defendant no.3 has been declared Bhumidar of the said land including the shop in dispute by the court of Shri D.R.Nafri. Additional Collector, Delhi vide its orders dated 28.07.1988 alongwith the brother of the defenant no.3 Shri Parveen Kumar Jain. Earlier the D.D.A had filed a false complaint against the plaintiff which was registered as Case no. 72/3 with respect to the said shop of the plaintiff titled as D.D.A. (through its Secretary,) Delhi versus Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Wadhawa Singh and which was heard and decided by the Court of Shri P.D. Jarwal, M.M.Delhi vide which the Hon'ble Court has pleased to acquit the plaintiff of the charge falsely levelled by D.D.A. The defendant no.2 had been demanding increase in rent on the false af plea but as the demand of the defendant no.2 was illegal, unwarranted and uncalled for, the plaintiff refused to increase the rent of the shop under his tenancy. The enraged on the refusal of the plaintiff to increase the rent, the defendant no.2 to get the premises vacated through the back door by getting the same demolished in conspiracy with the officials of the defendants no.1 and 3 and in pursuance of the said evil designs of defendant no.2, the defendant no.2 brought government officials accompanied by the enforcement staff to get the premises demolished on 11.07.1983 and as the plaintiff was not available, they did not demolish the premises in dispute but had Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 2 /37 extended threats that they would come again at some convenient time with force to demolish the premises in question. The threatened action of the defendant being absolutely illegal, unwarranted, uncalled for, arbitrary, without jurisdiction on the following grounds:
i) That the premises are old and have been in posssesion for the last more than 27 years;
ii) That the plaintiff is a lawful tenant in the premises and as such, the plaintiff is duly protected by Delhi Rent Control Act:
iii) That no notice, whatsoever, has ever been served on the plaintiff in this respect to put up his case as is the requirement by law.
iv) That the land over which the property in question of the plaintiff is situated, has never been acquired by the Government and still the same is owned by defendant no.2, Shri Anil Kumar Jain and, as such, the defendant no.1 has no right, title or interest to demolish the same.
Thus, the present suit has been filed with the following prayers:
a) That a decree of permament injunctions be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their officials and agent from demolishing or evicting or interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, in any manner, in respect of Shop no.2, situated at Khasra no.403/90/1 Min. (3-11) at G.T. Road, Petrol Pump, Azadpur, Delhi, as shown in more details and in red colour in the enclosed site plan.Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 3 /37
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT No.2.
2. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain stating that defendant no.2 never demanded increase rent from the plaintiff. It was denied that the defendant no.2 wants to get the shop demolished in conspiracy with the officials of the defendants 1 and 3. The defendant did not go to the shop on 11.07.1983 or on any other date with any officials the defendant no.1 and 3 did not threaten the plaintiff for demolition of the shop and prayed for dismissal of suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT/DDA.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.3/DDA submitted that the land measuring 7 Bigha 12 Biswas stands devided into three parts The land bearing no.403/90/2/1 stands acquired vide nd avard no. 1545 and Khasra no.403/90/2/2/ stands acquired vide avard no. 1545(A). The possession of both these khasras were take over by the Government and subsequently placed at the disposal of the DDA through notifications dated 05.09.1964 and 4.3.78 respectfully. The land measuring 9 Biswas out of the khasra no.403/90/1 was acquired through award no.1001 of village Azadpur for widening of road. Remaining land measuring 4 Bigha and 14 Biswas of Khasra no.403/90/1 belonged to Gaon Sabha. On organisation of the Gaon Sabha land the same vested with the Central Govt. and thereafter it has been placed at the disposal of the DDA through a notification no.50/2190 dated 20.8.74. Thus, the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and has no locus standi to file the present suit. The plaintiffs are recent rank tresspasser over the Govt. land, therefore, the suit is not Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 4 /37 maintainable. It is stated that the land under reference is under the control and management of the answering defendant. It is submitted that Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain has no right over the disputed land. It is submitted that the DDA vas not a party to the said proceedings before civil or revenue court.
REPLICATION
4. In replication to the written statement of defendants again the plaintiff reiterated the same facts as stated in plaint. .
5. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 05.08.204:-
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from demolishing the suit shop no.2 situated at G.T Road, Azadpur, Delhi and from evicting the plaintiff from the suit shop without the due process of law? OPP.
ii) Whether the land on which the suit shop is built is at the disposal of DDA vide S.O no.2190, dated 20.08.1974, if so, its effect? OPD-1.
iii) Whether the land in question on which the suit shop is built comes under Khasra no.403/90/1 adn is a private land? OPP.
iv) Whether this suit is maintainable in its present form in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Anathula Sudhakar Vs.P Budhi Reddy ARI 2008 SC 2033? OPP
v) Whether the present suit is barred under section 53-
B of DDA Act/ OPD-1 Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 5 /37
vi) Whether present suit has not been properlyl valued for the purpose of of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD-1.
vii) Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined Shri Manpreet Singh as PW-1 and he has reiterated the averments of the plaint by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that the deponent is grandson of deceased plaintiff Shri Gurjit Singh. It is stated that defendant no.3 was declared bhumidar by the of Sh. D.R. Jafri ADM Delhi in Case No. 137/1987 vide order dated 28.07.1988. The copy of Mutation in favour of The defendant No. 3 already on record and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. The plaintiff is tenant and in lawful possession of Shop no.6, G.T. Road (Near Petrol Pump), Azadpur, Delhi under the defendant No.3 at a monthly rent of Rs.34/- for the last, about 50 years. Copy of rent receipts are already on record and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/2(colly). The plaintiff has been running workshop in the aforesaid tenanted premises under the name and style M/s Dashmesh Auto Works which workshop is registered with the various authorities/departments including Telephone; electricity; shop & establishment; sales tax; income tax etc. Copy of telephone bills are already on record and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/3(colly). Copy of electricity bills are already on record and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 (colly). Copy of sale tax bills are already on record and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/5 (Colly). Copy of income bills are already on record and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/6 (colly). Copy of registration certificate of the M/s Dashmesh Auto Works which Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 6 /37 workshop is registered with the various authorities/departments. The copy of registration certificate is already on record and the same is exhibited as Ex.PW1/7. The landlord/defendant no.3 has been demanding increase in rent on false plea of rent having been increased, which demand of the defendant no.3 was illegal, unwarranted and uncalled for and the plaintiff refused to accede to the said demand and to increase the rent of the shop under the tenancy. On being enraged on refusal by the plaintiff to increase the rent, the defendant no.3 started to contemplate getting the tenanted premises vacated through back door by getting the same demolished in conspiracy with the officials of defendants no.1 and 2. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of Mutation in favour of defendant no. 3 exhibited being photocopy and is Marked as Mark-A.
2. Copy of rent receipts dated 17.08.1972 and 29.11.1983 are exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 (colly). (2 pages),
3. Copy of telephone bills exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 is de- exhibited being not available on record,
4. Original of electricity bill exhibited as Ex.Pw1/4 is de- exhibited being not available on record.
5. Copy of sales tax bill exhibited as Ex.PW1/5 is de- exhibited being not available on record,
6. Original of income tax bills is exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 is de-exhibitted being not available on record.
7. Copy of Registration Certificate exhibited as Ex.PW1/7 is de-exhibited being not available on record.
7. PW-1 in his cross examination he denied the suggestion that the present suit has been filed in collusion with Sh.Anil Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 7 /37 Kumar Jain. He admitted that the suit land forms part of khasra no.403/90/1 of village Azadpur and he has not seen any title documents in favour of Sh. Anil Kumar Jain or his father etc. with respect to the Suit Property. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff, late Sh. Gurjit Singh had not been in possession of the suit land prior to the filing of the present suit. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff late Sh. Gurjit Singh sought to encroach upon the Gaon Sabha land and filed the present suit for the said purpose. He denied the suggestion that till the time of filing of the present suit, the suit land was vacant. The suit land is adjacent to the land in occupation of late Sh. Gurcharan Singh. He denied the suggestion that neither there existed any structure on the suit land on 11.07.1983 or on any date prior to that. He also denied the suggestion that none of the official / staff of DDA visited the suit land on aforesaid date to demolish any structure. He denied the suggestion that rent receipts are forged and have been created to use as evidence in the present suit. He admitted that Sh.Anil Jain had never issued him any notice in writing to terminate the tenancy and no eviction petition has been filed against the plaintiff. He admitted that the name of plaintiff is not mentioned in any of the revenue record including khasra girdawari, khatauni etc. He denied the suggestion that the documents relied upon by me in my affidavit of evidence have been created after the filing of the present suit to use the same as evidence in the present suit.
8. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 13.11.2024 on the statement of LR of plaintiff and matter was fixed for DE.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 8 /37DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
9. Defendant examined Shri Kunal Kumawat as DW-1. In his evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A he reiterated the same facts as in his W.S and placed on record the following documents:-
i). Copy of notification dated 23.05.1963 Ex.DW1/1,
ii).Copy of notification dated 20.08.1974 is Ex.DW1/2.
The testimony of DW-1 is not discussed therein for sake of brevity as he is formal witness who only placed on record above documents.
Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 13.11.2024 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for parties and carefully gone through the record.
Issue wise findings are as follows:-
10.
(a) Issue no.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from demolishing the suit shop no.2 situated at G.T Road, Azadpur, Delhi and from evicting the plaintiff from the suit shop without the due process of law?OPP.
The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff and before discussing the evidence pertaining to the present issue which has been placed on record. It is necesssary to understand the pleadings specially the plaint filed by plaintiffs herein. The importance of pleadings has been highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a celebrated case of Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors decided on 21 March, 2012 and the relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 9 /3761. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important for ascertaining the title and possession of the property in question.
62. Possession is an incidence of ownership and can be transferred by the owner of an immovable property to another such as in a mortgage or lease. A licensee holds possession on behalf of the owner.
63. Possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the Court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the Court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum.
64. There is a presumption that possession of a person, other than the owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is permissive on behalf of the title-holder. Further, possession of the past is one thing, and the right to remain or continue in future is another thing. It is the latter which is usually more in controversy than the former, and it is the latter which has seen much abuse and misuse before the Courts.
69. The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularized specific pleading along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his possession.
70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount;
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 10 /37
(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease - then insist on rent deed, license deed or lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.
71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be relevant which come into existence after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold, the Court must carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents.
76. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue in possession of another property, it becomes necessary for him to plead with specificity about who was the owner, on what date did he enter into possession, in what capacity and in what manner did he conduct his relationship with the owner over the years till the date of suit. He must also give details on what basis he is claiming a right to continue in possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence.
79. In dealing with a civil case, pleadings, title documents and relevant records play a vital role and that would ordinarily decide the fate of the case.
11. In view of the above principles let us now examine the case of the plaintiff on the basis of the plaint. Firstly, it is hereby clarified that present civil right of plaintiff as stated to be derived Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 11 /37 from the Bhumidari rights of defendant Anil Kumar Jain and the seperate suit of Anil Jain with respect to the same suit property has already been dismissed by this court wherein he could not prove his legal/settled possession. Thus, the present suit of plaintiff also deserved out right dismissal but since the plaintiff has contested the suit for so many years, this Court is hereby proceedings to decide the suit on basis of evidence led on record during trial. Para no.1 of the present amended plaint mentiones the adddress of the suit property as shop no.2 situated in Khasra no.43/90/1 of village, Azadpur but in evidence affidavit of PW-1 i.e Ex.PW1/A that address of suit property is stated to be shop no.6 in place of shop no.2. Further, the para no.1 of the plaint stated that the tenancy is from the last 50 years since 1955 but in the para no.3 of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A it is stated to be from last 50 years from the date of filing of the suit i.e 14.07.1983. Further the present suit being filed on 14.07.1983 and the para no.8 of Evidence Affidavit stated that the suit shop is in possession of plaintiff since last 20 years from the date of filing of present suit. Thus, there are contradictions in the pleadings of the plaintiff itself duration of possession of suit shop.
Further, it is stated in the plaint as well as evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A that the rent of suit premises was Rs.34/- per month but neither the plaint nor evidence affidavit talks about the period from when said tenancy commenced. The plaint is also silent as to the date when increase rent was sought by the defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain as alleged in the plaint. Both the plaint as well as evidence affidavit stated that the defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain in collusion with officials of DDA and Union Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 12 /37 of India came to the suit property on 11.07.1983 and since plaintiff was not available at suit property no action was taken by the officials. It is thus, interesting to note that if plaintiff doubts the intention of defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain regarding collusion with the government officials, this court fails to understand the reason behind the statement of the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff dated 20.09.2024 whereby he stated to not examine the defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain who was mentioned as witness no.7 in the list of witness filed by plaintiff. Also apart from alleged incident of 11.07.1983 no other incident has been mentioned in the plaint or the evidence affidavit with respect to threats given by Government officials to plaintiff.
12. There are various loopholes in the testimony of plaintiff PW-1. During cross examination by counsel for defendant/DDA PW-1 denied the suggestion that suit has been filed in collusion with defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain but to rebut the said suggestion of the defendant/DDA the plaintiff did not examine Shri Anil Kumar Jain as the witness despite his name being mentioned in the list of witness filed by plaintiff. Further, PW-1 denied that the possession was not prior to the filing of the suit but in order to rebut the said suggestion no document has been placed on record to show that the possession of plaintiff was prior to filing of the suit i.e 1983. The document Ex.PW1/2(colly) i.e rent receipt in the name of deceaed/plaintiff dated 19.04.1983 mentioned the adddress of property as Khasra no.403/90/1 and the another rent receipts dated 11.01.1975 also mention the address of property as 403/90/1. Both the said rent receipts nowhere mentioned the address of the suit property i.e shop no.2 of the deceased plaintiff and thus, can not be Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 13 /37 considered as proof of possesion with respect to the suit shop. Further, the rent receipt dated 19.04.1983 appears to be signed by defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain but for reasons best known to the plaintiff he has not been examined him i.e Anil Kumar Jain to prove the said rent receipt. In view of the above, the rent receipts Ex.PW1/2(Colly) stands not proved and can not be read in evidence as prove of possession of the plaitniff as a tenant in the suit shop. The PW-1 barely denied the suggestion of DDA that the rent receipt are not forged but as discussed above he has failed to prove the rent receipt Ex.PW1/2(colly) and there is no other document aprt from rent receipts to show tenancy created by defendant no.2 or his deceased father in favour of the deceased plaintiff/his LR's.
13. PW-1 also denied the existence of any super structure on the suit property as on 11.07.1983 but he has not placed on record any document to show the existence of the said super structure as on 11.07.1983 or on the date prior to the filing of the suit. No witness has been examined by plaintiff to corroborate fact of his long possession and running of business. The photographs as well as site plan placed on record by plaintiff have not been exhibited by the plaintiff and thus are not considered by this court. The PW1 also admitted in his cross examination that no eviction proceedings has been initiated against the plaintiff by defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain with respect to suit shop. This fact in view of allegation in the plaint against defendant no.2 raises doubt in the mind of this court regarding the present plaint being filed in collusion with defendant no.2 as suggested by the counsel for DDA. Further the Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 14 /37 document Ex.PW1/3 i.e telephone bills, Ex.PW1/4 copy of electricity bills, Ex.PW1/5 copy of sales tax bills, Ex.PW1/6 copy of income tax bill, Ex.PW1/7 copy of registration certificate concerning the suit property as mentioned in the plaint as well as evidence affidavit was not available on record. The document Ex.PW1/1 which pertains to the Khatoni with respect to the Khasra no.403/90/1 wherein mutation was made in the name of Anil Kumar Jain and his brother Praveen Kumar Jain as a consequence to the order of additional collector passed in year of 1988 is of no consideration to this court as the said Anil Kumar Jain who is defendant no.2 in present case has filed another suit bearing no.6082/16 with respect to the suit proprerty alongwith another property titled as Anil Kumar Jain vs DDA & Ors has already been dismissed by this court by way of separate judgment.
In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has clearly failed to establish his possession in the suit property as alleged in the plaint.
14. The judgment of three Judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs.Vs.M.Varadappa Naida (D)by Lrs. & Anr. decided on 15.12.2003 and relied upon by the counsel for plaintiff to prove the settled possession of plaintiffs wherein the settled possession of plaintiff was not disturbed by the Hon'ble Court in facts if that given case where the dispute was between two individual parties. But the said judgment do not apply to the facts of present case where the plaintiff is seeking relief against the government body. The standard of proof when injunction is sought against Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 15 /37 government body is high compared to case when sought against private individual.
The above view of the undersigned in also supported by Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Nathu Ram vs DDA decided on 01.02.2022 as cited by ld.counsel of DDA. The contention of plaintiffs that since they are in possession and can not be dispossesed without due process of law looses any force when the present suit has been contested by DDA to dispute the said possession as claimed by plaintiffs and the adjudication to the issue by this court amounts to following due process of law irrespective of fact that suit was filed by plaintiffs. The relevant paragraphs of said judgment are quoted below:-
25. In so far as the Trial Court's finding stating that DDA cannot dispossess the Plaintiffs without due process of law, is concerned, this is clearly an erroneous approach inasmuch as even if the Plaintiffs are stated to be in settled possession, it is not necessary for the DDA to file a suit to take possession from them. The DDA can, as a Defendant, establish before the Court that the Plaintiffs are in possession of a government land and the same can result in dismissal of the suit.
Due process of law, as is settled in several judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, does not always require initiation of action by the owner/ Government. Dismissal of a suit by a competent Court of law after affording proper opportunity to the parties, is also a recognized mode of following the due process of law. On this issue, the observations of the Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 16 /37 Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs, (2012) 5 SCC 370, are as under:
"81. Due process of law means nobody ought to be condemned unheard. The due process of law means a person in settled possession will not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Due process means an opportunity for the Defendant to file pleadings including written statement and documents before the Court of law. It does not mean the whole trial. Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent Court.
82. The High Court of Delhi in a case Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. Hotel Imperial, 2006 (88) DRJ 545 : (AIR 2007) (NOC) 169) held as under:
"28. The expressions 'due process of law', 'due course of law' and 'recourse to law' have been interchangeably used in the decisions referred to above which say that the settled possession of even a person in unlawful possession cannot be disturbed 'forcibly' by the true owner taking law in his own hands. All these expressions, however, mean the same thing - ejectment from settled possession can only be had by recourse to a court of law. Clearly, 'due process of law' or 'due course of law', here, simply mean that a person in settled possession cannot be ejected without a court of law having adjudicated upon his rights qua the true owner.
Now, this 'due process' or 'due course' condition is satisfied the moment the rights of the parties are adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. It does not matter who brought the action to court. It could be the owner in an action for enforcement of his right to eject the person in unlawful possession. It could be the person who is sought to be ejected, in an action preventing the owner from ejecting him. Whether the action is for enforcement of a right (recovery of possession) or protection of a right (injunction against dispossession), is not of much consequence."
26. This position was reiterated by this Court in Bal Bhagwan v. Delhi Development Authority [CM (M) 416/2019, decided on 18th December, 2020] holding that the 'due process' condition Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 17 /37 would be sufficiently met if a person in settled possession is dispossessed by the dismissal of an application for interim injunction, as long as the rights of the parties are adjudicated upon and opportunity is given to them to present their case. On the question of 'due process', this Court has observed as under:
"The issue as to what constitutes 'due process' is thus settled beyond any doubt. The Plaintiff, who is claiming possession, can be dispossessed in the suit for injunction filed by him. Due process does not always mean that the owner has to file the suit to prove his title. So long as a Court of law has examined the documents and has given a fair hearing to the parties concerned, the compliance of due process has taken place. Moreover, due process of law also does not mean the final adjudication after trial. It merely means an opportunity being given to present the case before the Court of law and the rights of the parties being adjudicated. It does not mean the whole trial, as per Maria Margarida (supra).
60. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (supra) is to the effect that if a party is in settled possession, his possession cannot be disturbed without due process of law being followed. The said case related to a private land in dispute between two private parties. The lands of the Plaintiff and the Defendant were adjoining in nature and there was a dispute as to the demarcation thereof. Since the identification and extent of the land itself was in doubt, the Court, in order to protect the Plaintiff, held that the owner would have to assert his title in an independent suit. The facts of the said case cannot be compared to the facts of the present case to permit an encroacher and illegal occupant to retain possession of the suit property.
61. The plea of adverse possession, though pleaded in the plaint, has been given up in the present petition and only settled possession is argued. The question as to whether the Plaintiff is in settled possession or not, in terms of the test laid down in Puran Singh (supra) need not be gone into in the present case, inasmuch as the fact that the Plaintiff is in possession, in whatsoever capacity, to the knowledge of the authorities, is clear from the Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 18 /37 khasra girdawari itself. The person in settled possession cannot continue to remain in possession forever. Once a Court of law has arrived at the conclusion that the person in possession has no rights, the possession can be taken away. The Trial Court has not merely relied upon Jagpal Singh (supra) but also considered various judgments of the Supreme Court including Rame Gowda (supra) and Maria Margarida (supra). Thus, the grievance against the Trial Court judgment that it followed Jagpal Singh (supra) which is per incuriam is without any merit.
29. In view of this legal position, the requirement of adhering to due process of law has been satisfied in the present case and the Plaintiffs are not being dispossessed contrary to law.
30. This brings the Court to the question of the onus of the Plaintiffs of proving their ownership of the suit property. It is well-settled that in cases of government land, there is a greater responsibility of Courts in ascertaining title of third parties. In fact, the plaintiff in such cases must establish his clear right, title and nature of possession in the property, superior to that of the Government authority and there is a presumption in favour of the Government. In such cases, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that it is not sufficient to show possession or adverse possession merely by some stray revenue entries or records. This position was elaborated upon by the Supreme Court in R. Hanumaiah and Ors. v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Ors., (2010) SCC 203:
"Nature of proof required in suits for declaration of title against the Government
15. Suits for declaration of title against the government, though similar to suits for declaration of title against private individuals differ significantly in some aspects. The first difference is in regard to the presumption available in favour of the government. All lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the government. All unoccupied lands are the property of the government, unless any person can establish his right or title to any such land. This presumption Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 19 /37 available to the government, is not available to any person or individual. The second difference is in regard to the period for which title and/or possession have to be established by a person suing for declaration of title. Establishing title/possession for a period exceeding twelve years may be adequate to establish title in a declaratory suit against any individual. On the other hand, title/possession for a period exceeding thirty years will have to be established to succeed in a declaratory suit for title against government. This follows from Article 112 of Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes a longer period of thirty years as limitation in regard to suits by government as against the period of 12 years for suits by private individuals. The reason is obvious. Government properties are spread over the entire state and it is not always possible for the government to protect or safeguard its properties from encroachments. Many a time, its own officers who are expected to protect its properties and maintain proper records, either due to negligence or collusion, create entries in records to help private parties, to lay claim of ownership or possession against the government. Any loss of government property is ultimately the loss to the community. Courts owe a duty to be vigilant to ensure that public property is not converted into private property by unscrupulous elements.
16. Many civil courts deal with suits for declaration of title and injunction against government, in a casual manner, ignoring or overlooking the special features relating to government properties. Instances of such suits against government being routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of proper contest, merely acting upon the oral assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are common. Whether the government contests the suit or not, before a suit for declaration of title against a government is decreed, the plaintiff should establish, either his title by producing the title deeds which satisfactorily trace title for a minimum period of thirty years prior to the date of the suit (except where title is claimed with reference to a grant or transfer by the government or a statutory development authority), or by establishing adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years. In such suits, courts cannot, ignoring the presumptions available in favour of the Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 20 /37 government, grant declaratory or injunctive decrees against the government by relying upon one of the principles underlying pleadings that plaint averments which are not denied or traversed are deemed to have been accepted or admitted. A court should necessarily seek an answer to the following question, before it grants a decree declaring title against the government : whether the plaintiff has produced title deeds tracing the title for a period of more than thirty years; or whether the plaintiff has established his adverse possession to the knowledge of the government for a period of more than thirty years, so as to convert his possession into title.
Incidental to that question, the court should also find out whether the plaintiff is recorded to be the owner or holder or occupant of the property in the revenue records or municipal records, for more than thirty years, and what is the nature of possession claimed by the plaintiff, if he is in possession - authorized or unauthorized; permissive; casual and occasional; furtive and clandestine; open, continuous and hostile; deemed or implied (following a title).
17. Mere temporary use or occupation without the animus to claim ownership or mere use at sufferance will not be sufficient to create any right adverse to the Government. In order to oust or defeat the title of the government, a claimant has to establish a clear title which is superior to or better than the title of the government or establish perfection of title by adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years with the knowledge of the government. To claim adverse possession, the possession of the claimant must be actual, open and visible, hostile to the owner (and therefore necessarily with the knowledge of the owner) and continued during the entire period necessary to create a bar under the law of limitation. In short, it should be adequate in continuity, publicity and in extent. Mere vague or doubtful assertions that the claimant has been in adverse possession will not be sufficient.
Unexplained stray or sporadic entries for a year or for a few years will not be sufficient and should be ignored. As noticed above, many a time it is possible for a private citizen to get his name Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 21 /37 entered as the occupant of government land, with the help of collusive government servants. Only entries based on appropriate documents like grants, title deeds etc. or based upon actual verification of physical possession by an authority authorized to recognize such possession and make appropriate entries can be used against the government. By its very nature, a claim based on adverse possession requires clear and categorical pleadings and evidence, much more so, if it is against the government. Be that as it may."
31. Thus, the Plaintiffs had a heavy onus to establish the following:
(i) That they had acquired the suit property through legally recognized documents such as registered sale deed, allotment from governmental authorities, etc. However, no such documents were produced by the Plaintiffs.
(ii) That the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property which falls in Khasra No.48/7 - this ought to have been established by positive evidence and not by an inference.
(iii) That the Plaintiffs had to rely on documents proved in accordance with law, even to establish possession - however, in this case, only some spattering revenue records which were marked and not even exhibited, were relied upon by the Plaintiffs.
32. The plaint in the present case is bereft of any pleadings as to how ownership/title was acquired by the Plaintiffs to the land in question. It is relevant to note that even paragraph 2 of the plaint shows the manner in which the Plaintiffs state that the suit property is not acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and was not handed over to the DDA. This reflects the state of mind of the Plaintiffs who seem to have themselves had an apprehension that the suit property may be falling in the acquired portion of the land.
36. In view of the above settled legal position, that mere sporadic or stray entries in the revenue records cannot confer title, and the facts mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that there is any substantial Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 22 /37 question of law which deserves to be adjudicated upon in the present second appeal. In fact, from the evidence which has emerged from the record, it is clear that apart from some mention in khasra girdawaris, there are no other concrete documents which have been filed by the Plaintiff to discharge the heavy onus that is placed on him.
37. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the suit property in question is stated to be near a South Delhi Colony, adjacent to Safdarjung Enclave/Green Park and is very valuable. The Plaintiff who is in possession of a large part of this suit property, cannot continue to remain in possession, as permitting the same would be a giving a premium to illegal encroachments and occupations on public land.
39. Accordingly, DDA is free to take steps in accordance with law.
40. This Court notes that the present case is also another example of the ills that plague civil litigation in respect of government acquired land. The acquisition in this case dates back to 1961. The land was placed at the disposal of DDA in 1975. The suit in this case was filed in 1984 i.e., nine years later and was adjudicated upon by the Trial Court in 2011, i.e., more than 25 years later. The Appellate Court gave its decision in 2020. The DDA had taken an objection as to the maintainability of the suit itself, right at inception in its written statement. However, the suit had to go through the full journey of trial and final adjudication. In such cases, advantage is taken of the fact that due to rampant encroachment, demarcation cannot be usually done in the manner as prescribed by law. Illegal occupants of such properties continue to enjoy prime government/public land without paying a single penny to the government for use and occupation. As government authorities continue to defend against suits filed by such occupants, the public is deprived of the use and enjoyment of the said land which has been acquired for public purposes. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Trial Courts, to consider the maintainability of such suits at the initial stage in a manner that they deem appropriate, so as to ensure that such long delays do not take place, especially in respect of government land.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 23 /37 The above legal principles when applied to present case of plaintiffs based on similar facts make the case of plaintiff unreliable and the present plaintiffs who appear to be encroacher on public land can not be allowed to continue to remain in possession.
15. The notification dated 20.08.1974 of Ministry of Work and Housing in exercise of power confront by section 22(i) of DDA Act 1957 the Central Government have placed the Azadpur village among other villages mentioned in the notification at the disposal of DDA for purpose of development and maintenance of said lands as green and for taking such steps as may be required to serve the said purpose subject to the condition that DDA shall not make, or cause or permitted to be made any construction on the said lands. The above notification and its signifance has been beautifully explained in the case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajinder Kakkar And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority decided on 3 November, 1993 as cited by ld.counsel of DDA . The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
(17) Time has now come where the society and the law abiding citizens are being held to ransom by persons who have no respect for law. The wheels of justice grind slowly and the violators of law are seeking to take advantage of the laws delays. That is why they insist on the letter of the law being complied with by the respondents while, at the same time, showing their-complete contempt for the laws themselves. Should there not be a change in the judicial approach or thinking when dealing with such problems which have increased manifold in recent years viz., large scale encroachment on Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 24 /37 public land and unauthorised construction thereon, most of which could not have taken place without such encroachers getting blessings or tacit approval from the powers that be including the Municipal or the local employees. Should the Courts give protection to violators of the law? The answer in our opinion must be in the negative. Time has now come when the Courts have to be satisfied, before they interfere with the action taken or proposed to be taken by the governmental authorities qua removal of encroachment or sealing or demolishing unauthorised construction specially when such construction, like the present, is commercial in nature.
(18) Before action for demolition or removal of encroachment is taken the Court must be satisfied, prima facie,on the basis of some document or other tangible evidence that the petitioners or the applicants have a legal title to the property or a right to remain in possession thereof. Where a person is an encroacher and never had any right to legal possession of public land, the Courts should not grant any injunction or relief which will have the result of permitting or protecting the continued illegal occupation of public land. There may be a case where at a point of time the possession or occupation may have been valid under a lease or a grant and which lease or grant may have subsequently been wrongfully terminated and the termination challenged, such a .case may, however, fall in a different category where the question of balance of convenience will have to be carefully examined specially when the action of termination of lease or grant is seriously challenged. But, in a case like the present, where at no point of time the petitioners had any valid right, title or interest to the property the Court ought not to grant any relief to such a petitioner even if there has been any Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 25 /37 procedural irregularity by the respondent while seeking to get back possession of public land.
20) Another cardinal principle which has to be followed in a writ jurisdiction is that the petitioners must come to the Court with clean hands. Is such the case here? The answer is no. The following facts speak for themselves: 1.The petitioners have no legal title to the land; 2. The land vests with the Central Government and is a public property; 3.
There is encroachment by the petitioners on the land without permis- sion from the Government; 4. Construction has been raised on public land without submitting any building plans;
5.AccordingtotheMasterPlannoconstruction can be raised on the land in question because this is a green area; 6. Before seeking the transfer of land 'No Objection Certificate' was not obtained and the provisions of the Delhi Land (restriction of transfer) Act, 1972 were not complied with.
(21) The conduct of the petitioners is such that they are not entitled to any relief from this Court. Even if it be assumed that a show cause notice had to be issued under Section 30 of the Delhi Development Act before any demolition could be effected and non- issuance of the show cause notice has resulted in the breach of law, nevertheless no relief can be granted to the petitioners because of the irregularities which have been committed by the respondents. The respondents are entitled to regain possession of land which belongs to them and which has been encroached upon and the petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. It is possible that the petitioners may be innocent victims of land mafia but be that as it may, the petitioners should have known that in law this land vested in the Central Government and they should not have purchased the same in small Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 26 /37 parcels and then raise construction without following any building bye-laws. This is not a case where poor houseless people have put up shelters for themselves for their residence. Here is a case where public land has been encroached upon and is sought to be used for erecting structures for commercial use.
Also, in another case of Bakshi Ram vs Delhi Development Authority on 1 February, 1995 as cited by ld.counsel of DDA, The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows:-
(9) I have heard the arguments which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner has failed to produce any document by which his legal title or possession could be established. He has miserably failed to demonstrate how he was carrying on his business at Tank Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner being a tress passer and encroacher of public land is entitled to no relief from this Court. The process of court would not lend a helping hand to the trespassers and the encroachers of public land.
Further, Punjab-Haryana High Court in case of Mohan Lal vs Mohan Singh decided on 7 October, 1994 observed as follows:-
5. Apart from the three ordinary ingredients which must be satisfied for grant of injunction in favour of a plaintiff/petitioner, namely, a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, in cases involving public properties and public interest, the Courts have to bear in mind as to whether the grant of injunction would be Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 27 /37 conducive or detrimental to public interest. The Courts have to take note of the fact that Government lands belonging to the public at large and the community as a whole is entitled to enjoy the properties belonging to the Government. In fact, the Government holds property as a trustee of the people and, therefore, where any attempt is made by an individual or a group of individuals to misappropriate/misuse or otherwise interfere with the enjoyment of public property by the people in general, the Courts have to be extremely cautious in granting injunction in favour of such person only on the ground that he is in possession of the property. Possession of public property by such an individual or a group of individuals is no possession in the eyes of law. Such a person cannot claim any right whatsoever on the basis of unlawful occupation of the public property and Courts would be justified in declining any assistance to such a person. In such like cases, a plaintiff cannot claim parity with a person who has a dispute with another individual over a private property. Moreover, the Courts have to act as guardian of the public property and should not pass an order of injunction in favour of a person who has made unauthorised encroachment of the public property. For these reasons, I hold that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge does not suffer from any jurisdiction error or any other legal infirmity requiring interference by this Court.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 28 /37
16. The plaintiff have filed the certified copy of judgment with respect to land acquisition order pertaining to Khasra no.403/90/2/1 in favour of plaintiffs father but the said orders has no significance in present suit where the land in dispute pertians to Khasra no.403/90/1. The counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 28.03.2007 wherein in the para no.23 it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court that the unacquired land would have to be treated as private land and as not in Union of India upon urbanisation of village-Azadpur. This Court can not concur with the submission of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff as above order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para no.34 itself clearly stated that "nothing stated in this order would be construed as an expression on the mertis of the controversy. Observations in present order are prima facie expression of an opinion". As as we know the opinions are not legally binding on courts below.
So the said order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which has not given any finding to the said effect is of no help to plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiff herein have miserably failed to discharge the burden upon them to show their legal/settled possession and they can not thus, claim relief of injunction to be not dispossed without due process of law.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors decided on 21 March, 2012 observed as follows, relevant paragraphss are quoted below:
81. Due process of law means nobody ought to be condemned unheard. The due process of law means Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 29 /37 a person in settled possession will not be dispossessed except by due process of law. Due process means an opportunity for the defendant to file pleadings including written statement and documents before the Court of law. It does not mean the whole trial. Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent Court.
82. The High Court of Delhi in a case Thomas Cook (India) Limited v. Hotel Imperial 2006 (88) DRJ 545 held as under:
"28. The expressions `due process of law', `due course of law' and `recourse to law' have been interchangeably used in the decisions referred to above which say that the settled possession of even a person in unlawful possession cannot be disturbed `forcibly' by the true owner taking law in his own hands. All these expressions, however, mean the same thing -- ejectment from settled possession can only be had by recourse to a court of law. Clearly, `due process of law' or `due course of law', here, simply mean that a person in settled possession cannot be ejected without a court of law having adjudicated upon his rights qua the true owner.
Now, this `due process' or `due course' condition is satisfied the moment the rights of the parties are adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. It does not matter who brought the action to court. It could be the owner in an action for enforcement of his right to eject the person in unlawful possession. It could be the person who is sought to be ejected, in an action preventing the Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 30 /37 owner from ejecting him. Whether the action is for enforcement of a right (recovery of possession) or protection of a right (injunction against dispossession), is not of much consequence. What is important is that in either event it is an action before the court and the court adjudicates upon it. If that is done then, the `bare minimum' requirement of `due process' or `due course' of law would stand satisfied as recourse to law would have been taken. In this context, when a party approaches a court seeking a protective remedy such as an injunction and it fails in setting up a good case, can it then say that the other party must now institute an action in a court of law for enforcing his rights i.e., for taking back something from the first party who holds it unlawfully, and, till such time, the court hearing the injunction action must grant an injunction anyway? I would think not. In any event, the `recourse to law' stipulation stands satisfied when a judicial determination is made with regard to the first party's protective action. Thus, in the present case, the plaintiff's failure to make out a case for an injunction does not mean that its consequent cessation of user of the said two rooms would have been brought about without recourse to law."
In view of above discussion and in light of principles laid down by honble by Supreme Court, the adjudication of present case contested by defendant no.1,2 and 3 more specifically by DDA it can not be said that due process of law has not been followed. The plaintiffs here in are not entitled to any injunction being failed to establish legal settled possession. Accordingly, Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 31 /37 the issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff in favour of defendant/DDA.
18. Issue no.(ii). Whether the land on which the suit shop is built is at the disposal of DDA vide S.O no. 2190 dated 20.08.1974, if so, its effect?OPD-3.
The onus to prove the said issue is upon defendant/DDA. Vide notification above stated the whole of village Azadpur is under the disposal of DDA and in view of above discussion since the plaintiff has failed to show his settled/legal possession on the suit land it can be safely presumed that the said land is government land at disposal of DDA and the DDA is under duty to preserve the same from illegal encroachment by any person including present plaintiffs. Thus, the said issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant/DDA.
Issue no.(iii). Whether the land in question on which the Suit Shop is built comes under khasra no. 403/90/1 and is a private land?OPP The onus to prove the said issue is on plaintiff. The plaintiff in their plaint and PW-1 in his testimony and as per documents filed on record the suit shop is under Khasra no.403/90/1. The demarcation report dated 23.01.2015 also stated that the disputed property i.e suit shop falls under Khasra no.403/90/1 but the plaintiffs as discussed above in issue no.(i) has failed to show that the land in question is a prviate land belonging to them. The said issue is also accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant/DDA.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 32 /37 Issue no.(iv). Whether this suit is maintainable in its present form in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P Buchi Reddy AIR 2008 SC 20337OPP The onus to prove the said issue again on plaintiffs. To discuss the maintainability of present suit in view of above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India let's understand that the basic principles laid down in this case which are quoted below:-
17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under :
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. 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. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 33 /37
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.
But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 34 /37 Taking guidance from above principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Antalula Sudhakar Vs .P. Buchi Reddy, since the present case has been filed by plaintiffs on basis of their settled possession claiming their ownership/Bhumidari rights over suit land, the maintainability of suit is was not questioned initially but defendant/DDA challenged the title of plaintiff's in their WS and also throughout trial. The facts of present case falls under category (b) cases cited above as the possession is alleged by plaintiffs on basis of title in present case. While deciding issue no(i) against plaintiffs this court has discussed the issue of title which has arisen for consideration to decide legal possession of plaintiffs and find the same to be defective and plaintiffs can not claim themselves to be Bhumidar of suit land. Thus, the observations in the present suit with respect to title of plaintiffs is only for purpose of deciding present suit of simplicitor injunction filed by plaintiffs. The present case filed by plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of the Anatula Sudhakar case. Accordingly, the above issue is decided in favour of the defendant/DDA and against the plaintiff.
Issue no.(v). Whether the present suit is barred under Section 53- B of DD Act?OPD-3 The onus to prove the same is upon defendant no.3. There is no bar of the above provision in view of section 53-B (3) of DD Act wherein the suit for injunction does not require the mandatory notice. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant/DDA.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 35 /37 Issue no.(vi). Whether present suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD-3.
The onus to prove the same is upon defendant no.3 no evidence has been led by defendants with respect to present issue challenging the valuation of suit. Since present suit is filed with prayer of simplicitor injunction can not be said to be under valued and hence the issue is decided in favour of plaintiff against the defendant/DDA.
19. Before parting with the judgment, this court wish to follow the Principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors decided on 21 March, 2012 observed as follows, relevant paragraphss are quoted below:
False claims and false defences
84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate.
Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount.
This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent.
85. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi and Others (supra) aptly observed at page 266 that unless wrongdoers are Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 36 /37 denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that Court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least be minimized if exemplary cost is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation.
20. The present case which is in view of above discussion is no doubt based on false claim and has wasted precious time of this court in this present frivilous litigation and thus, the cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon both the plaintiffs jointly to be deposited in the "Avlamban Fund Scheme,2024 maintained in State Bank of Indian, Tis Hazari Court complex, Delhi saving account number.43599660056, within one month from date of order.
Relief
21. In view of the above discussion, the present suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. The plaintiff is held to be not entitled to any relief of permanent injunction as prayed in prayer of plaint.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to the Record Room as per rules.
Announced in the open court (Neha Pandey)
on 3rd March, 2025 JSCC/ASCJ/Guardian Judge
West, Tis Hazari, Delhi
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 37 /37