Delhi District Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki on 3 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 349/2016
In the matter of:
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,
New Delhi - 110023. ........Appellant
Versus
Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki
S/o Sh. Sunda Ram @ Nathu Ram,
R/o Village Nasirpur,
New Delhi. .......Respondent
Date of filing of the appeal : 02.01.2013
Date of reserving order : 06.03.2019
Date of pronouncement : 03.09.2019*
* On 18.04.2019, no order was passed as I was giving dictation in other matters bearing CS.
No. 6766/16 titled as "Chaudhary Labels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prinkit Retails Ltd.", RC/ARC No. 25596/16
titled as "Parveen Singh Vs. Nayabuddin" and RC/ARC No. 25597/16 titled as "Parveen Singh Vs.
Tara Singh". On 01.06.2019 no order was passed as I was giving dictation in another matter
bearing CS. No. 9896/16 titled as "Ashok Kumar Vs. Rajinder Kumar Sharma". On 24.07.2019 no
order was passed as I was giving dictation in other matters bearing RCA No. 408/16 titled as
"Multani Singh & Ors. Vs. DDA & Anr." and RCA No. 409/16 titled as "Multani Singh & Ors. Vs.
DDA & Anr."
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant / DDA against the Judgment dated 25.10.2012 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Vide this impugned Judgment, suit filed by the respondent was allowed. The appellant was permanently restrained from dispossessing the respondent, without following due process of law from suit property bearing khasra no. 393 min (416), situated in the Revenue Judgment RCA No. 349/16 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki Page..... 1/8 Estate of Village Nasirpur, New Delhi 1.1 The present appellant is the original defendant. The present respondent is the original plaintiff in the original suit. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the parties shall be referred to by the nomenclature as mentioned in the original suit.
2. Brief facts as summarized by the Ld. Trial Court: 2.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that during the Twenty Point Programme of government, a piece of land bearing khasra no. 393 min. (416) was allotted to the plaintiff by Gaon Sabha on 23.12.1975 as a Military Personnel. Plaintiff had filed a petition under Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act for declaration of Bhumidhar rights the Revenue Assistant vide order dated 12.11.1986 extended the lease period for another period of two years. The plaintiff further deposited the lease money with the bank on 14.10.1988 and 09.11.1995. It is stated that the plaintiff is cultivating the land in question and using the same for agricultural purposes. His name is entered in the khasra girdawari for the year 198182 but the revenue department stopped recording the name of the plaintiff because of some order of the higher officers (A.DM/RA) not Judgment RCA No. 349/16 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki Page..... 2/8 to effect the khasra girdawari or fill up Form P5 in the name of anybody except Gaon Sabha till specific order. Petition under Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was pending decision before the Revenue Assistant at the time of filing of the suit but has subsequently been decided in favour of the plaintiff. The land in question has not been acquired by the government till date but on 05.08.2004 the officials of the defendant came to the suit land for erecting the boundary around the vacant land including the suit land and tried to dig the foundation but due to timely intervention of the plaintiff the defendant could not succeed in their illegal designs. The plaintiff immediately reported the matter to the SHO of PS Dabri, New Delhi for illegally trying to take possession of the suit land with the request to prohibit the defendant and its officials from interfering in lawful and cultivatory possession of the plaintiff on the suit land, the copy of which was also handed over to the Executive Engineer, West DivisionVI, Dwarka.
2.2 Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit praying that the decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant, its officials, Judgment RCA No. 349/16 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki Page..... 3/8 servant, employees, associates from taking forcible possession and / or interfering in any manner whatsoever in the peaceful and legal possession of the suit property bearing khasra no. 393 min (416) situated within the revenue estate of Village Nasirpur, New Delhi.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant / DDA, it is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 53B DD Act which is mandatory. It is that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. The suit land forms a part of khasra no. 393 min (95 bigha) of village Nasirpur. This was Gram Sabha land and by virtue of operation of Section 150 (3) (a) of Delhi Land Reforms Act, it vested in the Central Government. Further, it has been placed at the disposal of DDA by virtue of notification dated 19.08.2002 issued under the provisions of Section 22 (1) of DD Act. The physical possession of this land has also been taken over on 13.10.2003 by DDA through BDO / Najafgarh/L&B Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Since it is a government land and therefore, the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest over this land. Due to operation of Section 153(a) of Judgment RCA No. 349/16 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki Page..... 4/8 Delhi Land Reforms Act, the gram sabha land vested in the Central Government and the same has been further transferred to DDA under the provisions of Section 22 (1) of DD Act.
4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant wherein the plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint and denied the averments made by the defendants in their written statement. It is further stated that the land in question forms part of khasra no. 393 min. measuring 148 bighas 13 biswa and out of which 95 bighas had been taken over by the DDA. However, the defendant has not specified in the written statement which portion of khasra no. 393 has been taken over by the DDA.
5. There is nothing on record in the trial court file / record to show that any written statement was filed by the defendants.
6. Memoranda of appeal filed.
7. There is nothing on record to show that any reply to the memoranda of appeal was filed on behalf of the respondent.
8. Final arguments heard.
8.1 It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Judgment RCA No. 349/16 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki Page..... 5/8 respondent was given possession of the suit property under government scheme for 05 years from 1981 to 1985. The village where the suit property is situated got urbanized. Due to this reason the Gaon Sabha land including the suit property is now owned by DDA. The Bhumidhari rights declared in favour of the respondent by SDM concerned have been challenged in appeal. The respondent continues to be in possession of the suit property.
8.2 It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent got possession of the suit property through process of law. Bhumidhar rights of the suit property were declared in his favour by the competent authority. The respondent has not in any way misused the land in question. He has not committed any illegality with regard to the land in question.
9. Reasons for Judgment 9.1 Issue no. 5 was framed in the original suit as follows: Issue no. 5: Whether the suit land form part of Khasra No. 393 (95) Village Nasirpur and vested in the Central Government by virtue of portion of Judgment RCA No. 349/16 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki Page..... 6/8 Section 150 (3) (a) of Delhi Land Reforms Act ? OPD In this regard, Ld. Trial Court held that DDA has admittedly taken possession of only a part of Khasra no. 393 min. Even Ex. DW1/4 did not show the portion of khasra no. 393 of which the possession was taken. The plaintiff has been declared as bhumidhar of the suit property. On the basis of the findings on issue no. 5, issue no. 1 regarding relief of permanent injunction was decided in favour of the plaintiff. It is mentioned by Ld. Trial Court that after urbanization of the village concerned reference to Gaon Sabha shall be read as reference to Central Government. After the declaration of bhumidhar rights regarding the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant preferred appeal against the same. During course of arguments before this court, it was admitted that the said appeal is pending. It is a matter of settled practice that where the parties have taken recourse to the legal proceedings they have to be wait for the outcome of the same. It was further observed that the defendant admitted that the statusquo order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal.
Judgment RCA No. 349/16 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki Page..... 7/8
10. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, warranting any interference.
11. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
12. No order as to cost.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. Copy of this Judgment along with T.C.R. be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
15. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance Digitally signed by RAJINDER RAJINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2019.09.07 09:19:33 +0530 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER SINGH) COURT ON 03.09.2019 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI Judgment RCA No. 349/16 Delhi Development Authority Vs. Col. Mahavir Singh Solanki Page..... 8/8