Delhi High Court
East Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Daljit Singh Bhatia & Ors. on 11 July, 2014
Author: Valmiki J.Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 725/2012 & CM No. 10855/2012
% 11th July , 2014
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Anuphav Mehrotra, Adv.
VERSUS
DALJIT SINGH BHATIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Aastha Dhawan, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order of the executing court dated 8.6.2012 by which the executing court issued warrants of possession with respect to the suit land comprised in the decree passed by the civil court dated 9.4.2003 in suit no. 164/2000 titled as Daljit Singh Bhatia & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. The decree dated 9.4.2003 was affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in RFA 746/2003 decided on 15.10.2008. Therefore, now the position which emerges is that the possession of the suit land, which is 2000 sq. yds of land forming part of K.No. 778/601/110, CM(M) 725/2012 Page 1 of 4 Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Village Seelampur, Delhi, under the decree has to be handed over to the decree-holders (the respondents in this petition).
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner essentially argued before this Court that taking the decree as final in favour of the respondents with respect to the suit land, however, now subsequent events have taken place whereby with respect to the suit land not only notifications under Sections 4,6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been issued, even a notification taking emergency possession has also been issued under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 9.9.2013, and consequently, it is argued that the petitioner/judgment-debtor is in possession of the suit land as per the subsequent proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is prayed that the subsequent events be taken note of and warrants of possession be recalled.
3. Though not argued, essentially what is argued is that as per Section 11 CPC a decree is final only with respect to the issues decided in the suit. Section 11 CPC uses the expression "under the same title" meaning thereby if title or ownership is claimed in the suit land, not under the title which was the subject matter of the suit whose decree is being executed, but CM(M) 725/2012 Page 2 of 4 independently under a different title, the earlier decree will not operate as res judicata and hence would not operate for executability. Against the petitioner in view of the subsequent proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the subject decree is now not executable.
4. Before me it is not disputed and could not be disputed on behalf of the respondents/decree-holders, that, there have taken place with respect to the land which is the subject matter of the decree dated 9.4.2003, proceedings for acquisition of this very land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and notifications have been issued under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus, the possession which is with the petitioner/judgment-debtor will not be liable to be taken under the decree dated 9.4.2003 because possession is claimed under the title which was not the title in issue in the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2003. 5(i) Learned senior counsel for the respondents-decree-holders however vehemently argued that the ex parte orders which were granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 2.7.2012 in this petition were obtained on wrong basis by concealing facts, and hence/since the officials of the petitioner are guilty of perjury, therefore this Court must take note accordingly, and still grant execution of the decree.
CM(M) 725/2012 Page 3 of 4
(ii) In this regard, all that is required to be noted is that the respondents/decree-holders can always, in accordance with law of course, if according to them the officials of the petitioner are guilty of perjury or any other offence, initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr. P.C, however, that cannot take away the fact that the decree dated 9.4.2003 is no longer executable in view of the subsequent events of acquisition having been initiated under the provision of Land Acquisition Act.
5. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and disposed of by noting that the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2003 will no longer be executable in favour of the decree-holders, (respondents herein) with respect to 2000 sq. yds of land forming part of K.No. 778/601/110, Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Village Seelampur, Delhi. However, it is clarified if for some reason land acquisition proceedings do not achieve finality, including for the reason that the same having been challenged by the decree- holders, then, decree-holders will always be entitled to execute the judgment and decree dated 9.4.2003. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
JULY 11, 2014/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
CM(M) 725/2012 Page 4 of 4