Delhi District Court
Surender Rana vs Samay Singh Rana And Ors on 4 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02: NORTH ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-003776-2019
CS DJ No. 211/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Surender Rana
S/o Shri Ran Singh Rana
R/o House No. 56, Nangli Poona
Delhi-110036
..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Samay Singh Rana
S/o Late Shri Dewan Singh
2. Manish Rana
S/o Shri Samay Sigh Rana
3. Manoj Rana
S/o Shri Samay Sigh Rana
4. Smt. Beermati Devi
W/o Shri Samay Sigh Rana
All R/o House, near Panchayat Ghar,
Village & PO Nangli Poona, Delhi-110036
5. The Deputy Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(North) Civil Lines Zone,
At 16, Rajpur Road,
Kamla Nehru Ridge, Civil Lines
Delhi-110054
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.04
16:40:38 +0530
CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 1 of 25
6. The Chair Person
Special Task Force (STF)
Constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India) the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A., New Delhi
7. The Office of the Monitoring Committee
(Constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India)
Core-6A, Lobby Floor,
India Habitat Centre,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
8. The Commissioner of Delhi Police
2nd Floor, MSO Building, Police Headquarter,
ITO, New Delhi-110002
9. The Station House Officer (SHO)
Swaroop Nagar Police Station,
Delhi-110042
.........Defendants
Date of institution : 27.04.2019
Date on which judgment was reserved : 02.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 04.07.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT, MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES OF SUIT PROPERTY.
Vide this judgment, this court shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent, mandatory injunction and damages of suit property.
Digitally signedVIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI Date:
BALI PLAINTIFF'S CASE 2025.07.04 16:40:47 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 2 of 25
1. It is case of plaintiff, Surender Rana that he is the owner and landlord of House No. 56, Village Nangli Poona, Delhi measuring 60' x 40', ( 60 ft. x 40ft.) (hereinafter referred to suit property).
2. It is case of the plaintiff that in 2016, construction was raised on ground floor and first floor.
3. In last week of July 2018 Sh. Madan Sangwan, Architect inspected the suit property. He found the structure in proper condition.
4. In August, 2018 Sh. Madan Sangwan visited suit property to start construction of second floor. He saw that in Western side of the suit property, which belongs to defendant Nos. 1 to 4, there was a joint wall.
Construction was going on at the behest of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Drill machines, hammers, JCB machines were used. Severe damage was caused to the house of the plaintiff. Cracks developed.
5. On 15, March 2019, Mr. Madan Sangwan found that the structure and foundation of plaintiff's suit property is weak. He opined that on weak foundation second floor cannot be constructed, cost of new construction and repair was given which is as under:
1. Cost of demolition of the damage portion = Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Cost of remove of garbage = Rs.1,10,000/-
3. Cost of labour charges for 1 and 2 = Rs.90,000/-
4. Cost on Area of reconstruction = Rs.33,60,000/-
Two rooms ground floor and two store and two rooms/kitchen Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:40:54 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 3 of 25 At first floor total area 2100 sq. ft. at the rate of 1600 per Sq. Ft.
5. Cost of other portion repair of the building = Rs.3,00,000/-
6. Cost of electricity and water Fitting = Rs.1,50,000/-
7. Cost of POP and Paint = Rs.3,00,000/-
8. Cost of Labour and other Charges on 4,5,6 & 7 = Rs.4,00,000/-
Total = Rs.48,10,000/-
6. Various complaints were filed but to no avail. The present suit has been filed with a prayer for a decree of Rs. 48,10,000/- towards damages. Permanent injunction is sought, restraining defendants from raising construction. Mandatory injunction is also sought directing defendants to demolish unauthorized portion of their property.
7. Vide the order dated. 01.10.2019, defense of defendant Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9 was struck off.
CASE OF DDA (Defendant No. 6)
8. It is stated that the cause of action, if any has arisen against NDMC. Answering defendant has no concern with the suit. A prayer is made for deletion of name of answering defendant.
WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT NOS. 1 TO 49. Preliminary objections are taken that:-
a) Suit is not maintainable. Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:41:01 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 4 of 25 b) No cause of action is disclosed. c) Plaint is not properly verified. d) Notice u/s 477 / 478 of MCD has not been served. Suit is
bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
10. On merits, it is pleaded case of answering defendants that plaintiff is not owner of the suit property. Further, in the construction process Drill Machines, Hammers, JCB Machines were not used. Property of answering defendant is only 250 square yards. There is no need for JCB machines, heavy Drill. The damage in property of the plaintiff is pleaded to be as a result of inferior use of plaster and POP. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has not got sanctioned plan of his house. With these averments dismissal of suit is prayed for.
REPLICATION
11. Replication dated 09.08.2019 was filed by the plaintiff to the written statement of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. In essence the pleadings of the plaint were reiterated and those in the written statement were denied.
ISSUES
12. Issues were framed by the court vide order dated 14.01.2020. Thereafter, vide order dt. 02.05.2022, corrected issues were re-framed, which are as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 48,10,000/- as damages as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP.Digitally signed by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:41:07 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 5 of 25
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in para no. 3 of the prayer clause of the plaint?OPP.
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 477/478 of DMC Act? OPD 1 to 4.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction to demolish the unauthorized portion as prayed in prayer clause (c)? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the cost as prayed?OPP.
6. Relief PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE :
Sr. NO. Name of witness Documents tendered and exhibited
1. PW1 Sh. Surender He tendered his evidence by way of Rana affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and he relied upon the following documents i.e. Copy of Aadhar Card Ex. PW 1/1 (OSR) Copy of electricity bill of the suit property Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR) Site plan is exhibited as Ex. PW1/3;
Photographs showing damages to the suit property Ex. PW1/4(colly.) (four running pages from page no. 61 to
64);
Copy of the report submitted by Mr. Madan Sangwan Ex. PW1/5;
Copy of complaint addressed to the VIKRAM Digitally signed by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:41:14 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 6 of 25 DC(North) Police, Monitoring Committee, STF, SHO Swaroop Nagar dated 25.04.2019, CP Delhi Police, DC(North) MCD Ex. PW1/6 to Ex. PW1/11(colly.);
Original postal receipts Ex.PW1/12(colly.) (2 pages at 59 and
60);
Copy of LC report dated 12.06.2019 along with photographs of the suit property and defendants' property as Ex. PW1/13(colly.) (running in ) and Copy of the complaint to SHO Swaroop Nagar dated 20.04.2019 Ex.PW1/14 (this document was not mentioned in the evidence by way of affidavit)
2. PW2 Ms. Vijay He was summoned witness and he Sachdeva, Adv. was appointed as Local Commissioner in the present case vide order dt. 25.05.2019 of the Ld. Predecessor Court. On 05.06.2019, he visited the suit property and property of defendant. He filed his report Ex.PW1/13 (colly.) Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:41:21 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 7 of 25
3. PW3 Sh. Madan He, being an Architect visited the suit Sangwan property in the last week of July 2018. He against visited in August 2018. He prepared his report dt.
18.04.2019 Ex.PW1/5. He also prepared site plan of suit property ExPW1/13. He had taken the photographs Ex.PW1/4 (colly.).
4. PW4 Sh. Yashpal He proved copy of the status from the Kumar, Planning STF Web Portal Ex.PW4/1, copy of Assistant, Special ATR Ex.PW4/2 and the photographs Task Force Cell from Ex.PW4/3.
STF Cell, 6th Floor, Vikas Minar, IP Estate, New Delhi-
110002.
5. PW5 Sh. Prakash PW5 is Senior Assistant in Chand Joshi Monitoring Committee, constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India. Being a summoned witness, he brought the copy of complaint dt.
25.04.2019 Ex.PW1/7 which was received by their office on 29.04.2019. He also brought the copy from dispatch register which shows the receipt of the complaint dt.
25.04.2019 vide entry no. 533 exhibited as Ex.PW5/1 (OSR). The copy of the complaint dt. 25.04.2019 was forwarded by their office and the entry in register regarding same is Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:41:35 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 8 of 25 Ex.PW5/2 (OSR).
6. PW-6 HC Umesh Being a summoned witness, he brought the post complaints register for the year 2017 to 2019. He deposed that one complaint by post received to their police station. The entry of the said complaint number is BP 128, which is endorsed in his register No. 1 to 8 which is Ex.PW6/1.
7. PW-7 SI Umesh He is a summoned witness and he Tiwari deposed that their office received a complaint dt. 25.04.2019 through speed post vide ED 253123214 on 04.06.2019 from one Surender Rana s/o sh. Ram Singh Rana (plaintiff).
The same was entered in the register vide entry No. 14887 dt. 07.06.2019, which was sent to Joint CP, Northern Range for necessary action vide copy of the entry of the register Ex.PW7/1 (OSR).
8 PW-8 Sh. Rakesh Being a summoned witness, he Kumar, Manager brought summoned record which are (TPDDL) regarding the connection of electricity meter in the name of Suresh Rana, House No. 56, Nangli Poona, Delhi-
36, which are Ex.PW8/1 (9 pages, colly.) (OSR) Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:41:42 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 9 of 25
13. Plaintiff Evidence was closed on 22.04.2024.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE Sr. NO. Name of witness Documents tendered and exhibited
1. DW2 Sh. Manish Rana He has tendered his evidence by way (first witness of of affidavit as Ex.DW2/A. defendants)
2. DW3 Sh. Manoj Rana He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.DW3/A. (Second witness of defendants)
14. Defendant's evidence was closed on 20.01.2025.
15. During pendency of the case, application u/o 18 Rule 17 CPC dated 10.02.2025 for recalling PW1 / plaintiff Sh. Surender Rana and PW-3 Sh. Madan Sangwan was pressed for. The said application was disposed vide separate order of even date.
16. This Court has heard rival submissions raised on behalf of parties, perused the case record with assistance of counsel. Having considered carefully the submissions following issue wise findings are returned:
ISSUE WISE SUBMISSIONS AND FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:
17. Issue no 1 is:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 48,10,000/- as damages as prayed for in prayer clause (a)? OPP.Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:41:48 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 10 of 25 ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
18. Counsel for the plaintiff argues on this issue that the property of the plaintiff which was damaged is ancestral property of the plaintiff. This property was already having ground floor and first floor. Plaintiff wanted to construct second floor. In last week of July, 2018, Mr. Madan Sangwan, Architect found the house no.56 of the plaintiff fit for construction. Mr. Madan Sangwan again visited in August 2018. he saw the construct work was going on western side portion which belongs to defendant no.1 to 4. Drill Machines, Hammers and JCB Machines were used the same cause vibration and Jolt and caused damage to house of the plaintiff. On 15.03.2019, Mr. Madan Sangwan again inspected the house of the plaintiff. He found that there is not possibility of construction of second floor. Repair was required and damages were estimated at Rs. 48.10 lac. Report Ex.PW1/5 of Sh. Madan Sangwan (PW3) dated 18.07.2019 is relied upon.
19. It is further argued by counsel for the plaintiff that photographs PW-1/4 (colly) the cracks in property of the plaintiff are shown except in photographs at pages no.63 (the photograph on top) which is stated to be property of defendant no.1 to 4 after construction.
20. It is further argued by counsel for the plaintiff that Ms. Vijay Sachdeva was appointed as local Commissioner pursuant to order dated 25.05.2019. Ms. Vijay Sachdeva was examined as PW2 and report Ex.PW1/13 Colly. The relevant portion of the report showing damage to property of the plaintiff is as under:
Digitally signedVIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI Date:
BALI 2025.07.04 16:41:54 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 11 of 25 "......REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF:
The plaintiff has shown undersigned his property as mentioned above. The undersigned found several cracks on both ground floor and first floor on the western wall of the property of the plaintiff, which is adjoining to the eastern wall of the property of the defendant and the cracks were also found in the adjoining rooms and kitchen on the first floor. The western wall of the property of the plaintiff adjoining the property of the defendant was also found tilted/bent and slightly sunk (around 2.3 inches) in the ground. The western, northern and southern walls of the rooms/Kitchen/floor/roof top adjoining to the property of the defendant are having multiple cracks due to which the structure is looking quite weak. The multiple cracks due to which the structure is looking quite weak. The multiple cracks have been shown in the photographs taken by the undersigned, which are enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. The floors of the property of the plaintiff, i.e., the floor at the ground, first and roof top, adjoining the western wall, is also damaged which has been revealing multiple cracks. The floor of ground floor adjoining the western wall is having long crack leaving the same as uneven..."
ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO.1 TO 4.
21. Counsel for defendant No.1 to 4 argues that plaintiff does not have ownership of suit property which was allegedly damaged. Per contra, to this submission counsel for the plaintiff argues that PW1 Sh.
Surender Rana was suggested in the cross-examination that he is the Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:42:00 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 12 of 25 owner of the suit property. Further DW2 Sh. Manish Rana in his cross- examination dated 07.08.2024 admitted that suit property of Sh. Surender Rana is also an ancestral property and he is having possession since more than 70 years.
22. Counsel for defendant No.1 to 4 argues that PW3 Sh. Madan Sangwan is not a credible witness. In his cross-examination dated 04.12.2023, he admitted that he did not see any joint wall. Heavy Machines during construction were not seen by him. On the contrary, in his report Ex.PW1/5 in para 2 it is mentioned that during construction in process heavy drill machines were used in property of Sh. Samay Singh/D1 and there is a joint wall of western side. Per contra, for this submission counsel for the plaintiff argues that in report PW1/5 Sh. Madan Sangwan had opined that the structural damages are as a result of use of JCB machines. It is clarified that joint wall constructed later which was noticed in the report.
23. It is further argued by defendant No.1 to 4 that in para 4 of the report Ex.PW1/5 the value of renovation /re-construction is assessed at Rs.15,00,000/- however, cost of new construction and repair is calculated at Rs.48,10,000/-. Per contra Ld. Counsel for plaintiff states regarding this submission that in report Ex. PW-1/5, Rs. 15 lacs are stated to be cost of renovation. But renovation is not possible as in Ex. PW-1/13 (colly) report, the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court had given a finding that wall of property of plaintiff is tilted/bent, thus reconstruction is required afresh so claim of Rs. 48,10,000/- is justified.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:42:06 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 13 of 25 FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO 1
24. Tersely put, it is case of plaintiff that the property of the plaintiff which was damaged is ancestral property. This property was already having constructed ground and first floor. Plaintiff wanted to construct second floor. For this purpose, in last week of July, 2018, Mr. Madan Sangwan, Architect found the house no.56 of the plaintiff fit for construction of second floor.
25. Mr. Madan Sangwan again visited in August 2018. he saw the construct work was going on western side portion which belongs to defendant no.1 to 4. Drill Machines, Hammers and JCB Machines were used the same cause vibration and Jolt and caused damage to house of the plaintiff. On 15.03.2019, Mr. Madan Sangwan again inspected the house of the plaintiff. He found that there is no possibility of construction of second floor. Repair was required and damages were estimated at Rs. 48.10 lac. Report Ex.PW1/5 of Sh. Madan Sangwan (PW3) dated 18.07.2019 is rightly relied upon by plaintiff.
26. Perusal of record shows that the photographs PW-1/4 (colly) show cracks in property of the plaintiff except on a photograph at pages no.63 (the photograph on top) which is stated to be property of defendant no.1 to 4 after construction.
27. Perusal of record shows that Ms. Vijay Sachdeva was appointed as local Commissioner pursuant to order dated 25.05.2019 by predecessor of this Court. Ms. Vijay Sachdeva was examined as Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:42:12 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 14 of 25 PW2.Report Ex.PW1/13 Colly was proved by her. The relevant portion of the report showing damage to property of the plaintiff is as under:
"......REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PLAINTIFF:
The plaintiff has shown undersigned his property as mentioned above. The undersigned found several cracks on both ground floor and first floor on the western wall of the property of the plaintiff, which is adjoining to the eastern wall of the property of the defendant and the cracks were also found in the adjoining rooms and kitchen on the first floor. The western wall of the property of the plaintiff adjoining the property of the defendant was also found tilted/bent and slightly sunk (around 2.3 inches) in the ground. The western, northern and southern walls of the rooms/Kitchen/floor/roof top adjoining to the property of the defendant are having multiple cracks due to which the structure is looking quite weak. The multiple cracks due to which the structure is looking quite weak. The multiple cracks have been shown in the photographs taken by the undersigned, which are enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. The floors of the property of the plaintiff, i.e., the floor at the ground, first and roof top, adjoining the western wall, is also damaged which has been revealing multiple cracks. The floor of ground floor adjoining the western wall is having long crack leaving the same as uneven..."
These two reports and photographs duly prove damage to property of plaintiff.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO.1 TO 4.
Digitally signedVIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:42:18 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 15 of 25
28. The submission on behalf of defendant No.1 to 4 that plaintiff does not have ownership of suit property which was allegedly damaged is without basis. This submission is rejected. Perusal of record shows that PW1 Sh. Surender Rana was suggested in the cross-examination that he is the owner of the suit property. Further DW2 Sh. Manish Rana in his cross-examination dated 07.08.2024 admitted that suit property of Sh. Surender Rana is also an ancestral property and he is having possession since more than 70 years.
29. The submission on behalf of defendant No.1 to 4 that PW3 Sh. Madan Sangwan is not a credible witness. As in his cross-examination dated 04.12.2023, he admitted that he did not see any joint wall or heavy Machines during construction whereas on the contrary, in his report Ex.PW1/5 in para 2 it is mentioned that during construction process heavy drill machines were used in property of Sh. Samay Singh/D1 and there is a joint wall of western side. These submissions are without merit. These submissions are rejected. Perusal of record shows DW2 Manish Rana admitted in his cross examination dated 07.08.24 that base of my property was dug up to 3 feet inside earth. base had width of 2 feet. Same was got done by manual labour. Use of JCB machine pales into insignificance in view of admissions of DW2 Manish Rana . Plaintiff has proved digging by defendants 1 to 4 resulting in loss to property of plaintiff.
30. Further inconsistency pointed out in evidence of PW3 Sh. Madan Sangwan that he admitted that he did not see any joint wall is without basis. Cross examination dated 04.12.23 of PW3 Sh. Madan Sangwan is VIKRAM Digitally signed by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:42:24 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 16 of 25 to be read as a whole. It becomes clear that he has clarified that he had mentioned the damages on western side of the wall in report. Report is dated 18.04.19 so at that stage if he witnessed the joint wall there is nothing suspicious about his conduct. Further no cross-examination on these lines was conducted on behalf of defendant no 1 to 4 to enable PW3 to further clarify his position.
31. The submission on behalf of defendant No.1 to 4 that in para 4 of the report Ex.PW1/5 the value of renovation / re-construction is assessed at Rs.15,00,000/- however, cost of new construction and repair is calculated at Rs.48,10,000/- so report (Ex.PW1/5) is not credible is without basis. This submission is rejected. Perusal of record shows that in report Ex. PW-1/5, Rs. 15 lacs is stated to be cost of 'renovate/reconstruction value'. However in considered opinion of this court renovation is not possible as in Ex. PW-1/13 (colly) report, the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court had given a finding that wall of property of plaintiff is tilted/bent. No second floor on tilted foundation wall can be constructed. Thus, reconstruction is required afresh so claim of Rs. 48,10,000/- is justified as detailed below:
1. Cost of demolition of the damage portion = Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Cost of remove of garbage = Rs.1,10,000/-
3. Cost of labour charges on 1 & 2 = Rs.90,000/-
4. Cost on Area of reconstruction = Rs.33,60,000/-
Two rooms ground floor and two store and two rooms/kitchen Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:42:30 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 17 of 25 At first floor total area 2100 sq. ft. at the rate of 1600 per Sq. Ft.
5. Cost of other portion repair of the building = Rs.3,00,000/-
6. Cost of electricity and water Fitting = Rs.1,50,000/-
7. Cost of POP and Paint = Rs.3,00,000/-
8. Cost of Labour and other Charges on 4,5,6 &7 = Rs.4,00,000/-
Total = Rs.48,10,000/-
This quantification done by PW3 Sh. Madan Sangwan was not disputed in cross-examination even no suggestion to effect that he is falsely deposing was put.
32. No grant of interest is prayed for. Interest is thus declined. Plaintiff is held entitled to Rs.48,10,000/-.
33. Issue no. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.2 is:
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in para no. 3 of the prayer clause of the plaint?OPP.
At the outset, Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 stated that construction on property of defendant no 1 to 4 is complete and further construction, if any will be done only as per law.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO 2 Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:42:36 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 18 of 25
34. Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 stated that construction on property of defendant no 1 to 4 is complete and further construction, if any will be done only as per law.
35. It is necessary to secure interest of plaintiff so that he does not suffer any further damage/injury to his property by any wrongful or illegal acts of defendants 1 to 4.
36. Decree of perpetual injunction is justified. Plaintiff can seek prevention of obligation in his favour as he has right to use his property free from any damages by defendants 1 to 4.
37. A decree of perpetual injunction is passed to the effect that defendants no 1 to 4 or their agents, associates, agents etc. are restrained from raising any further construction harming property of plaintiff.
38. Issue no 2 is decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no. 3 is:
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred u/s 477/478 of DMC Act? OPD 1 to 4.
39. Counsel for the defendant No 1 to 4 argues that required notice u/s 477/478 of DMC Act was not given so the suit may be dismissed.
40. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff relies upon case titled as Sh. Phool Singh Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:42:42 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 19 of 25 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26.07.2016 to contend that once suit is contested, this objection is deemed to be waived.
41. It is further argued that counsel for the plaintiff that Ex.PW1/6 dated 25.04.2019 was given to Deputy Commissioner MCD and the same substantially complies with the requirements of u/s 477/478 of DMC Act.
42. It is further argued by counsel for the plaintiff that separate application u/s 80 (CPC) dated 26.04.2019 was also filed for exemption for giving prior notice to defendant no.5,6,7,8 and 9.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 343. Submission on behalf of defendant No 1 to 4 that required notice u/s 477/478 of DMC Act was not given so the suit may be dismissed, is without merits. Same is rejected as in case titled as Sh. Phool Singh Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26.07.2016 it was held that once suit is contested, requirement of notice stands waived.
44. Perusal of record shows that Ex.PW1/6 dated 25.04.2019 was given to Deputy Commissioner MCD and the same in any case substantially complies with the requirements of u/s 477/478 of DMC Act.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:42:48 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 20 of 25
45. Perusal of record shows that separate application u/s 80 (CPC) dated 26.04.2019 was also filed for exemption for giving prior notice to defendant no.5,6,7,8 and 9. Since relief of urgent nature was sought in suit. Safety of plaintiff was at stake as cracked wall could fall on him. Thus, the application u/s 80 (CPC) dated 26.04.2019 is allowed.
46. Issue no 3 is decided against defendants 1 to 4.
Issue No.4 is:
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction to demolish the unauthorized portion as prayed in prayer clause (c)? OPP.
47. Counsel for the plaintiff argues that DW2 Sh. Manish Rana in his cross-examination dated 07.08.2024 admitted that he had not given letter to MCD for sanctioning of Map for construction.
48. It is further argued that DW2 Sh. Manish Rana admitted in his cross-examination dated 07.08.2024 that submersible for extracting ground water was planted.
49. It is further argued that DW2 Sh. Manish Rana admitted in his cross-examination dated 07.08.2024 that no completion certification of building from any Civic Authority was taken.
50. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 to 4 argues that vide PW-4/1 dt. 04.12.2023, the Delhi Development VIKRAM Digitally signed by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2025.07.04 16:42:54 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 21 of 25 Authority Special Task Force on complaint dt. 30.04.2019 had stated that final action as "no action required". So, demolition of illegal structure is not required. Similarly, vide Ex. PW-4/2, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation had stated on complaint dt. 04.09.2019 that no action is required at Serial No. 1.04. It is further argued that in this report action taken has been stated as under:
"The property has been inspected by the undersigned and found that the property consists of ground floor and the first floor. During inspection, neither any construction activities nor any building material stacked at site. The property found old and residentially occupied. Moreover, the property falls under 'Lal Dora'. Photographs attached."
FINDINGS ON ISSUER NO 4
51. Perusal of record shows that DW2 Sh. Manish Rana in his cross-examination dated 07.08.2024 admitted that he had not given letter to MCD for sanctioning of Map for construction.
52. It is further admitted by DW2 Sh. Manish Rana in his cross-examination dated 07.08.2024 that submersible for extracting ground water was planted.
53. It is further admitted by DW2 Sh. Manish Rana in his cross-examination dated 07.08.2024 that no completion certification of building from any Civic Authority was taken.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:43:00 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 22 of 25
54. However relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the unauthorized portion of property of defendant no 1 to 4 cannot be directed for reasons to follow in paragraphs below:
55. Perusal of record shows that vide PW-4/1 dt. 04.12.2023, the Delhi Development Authority Special Task Force on complaint dt. 30.04.2019 had stated that final action as "no action required", so demolition of illegal structure is not required.
56. Perusal of record shows that similarly, vide Ex. PW-4/2, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation had stated on complaint dt. 04.09.2019 that no action is required at Serial No. 1.04. In this report action taken has been stated as under:
"The property has been inspected by the undersigned and found that the property consists of ground floor and the first floor. During inspection, neither any construction activities nor any building material stacked at site. The property found old and residential occupied. Moreover, the property falls under 'Lal Dora'. Photographs attached."
57. Further no obligation in favour of plaintiff is shown to justify exercise of powers under Section 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Construction by defendants in their portion is admittedly complete. It is not shown as to how it now affects plaintiff. For damage done to plaintiff he has been duly compensated. Perpetual injunction to prevent further future Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:43:06 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 23 of 25 damage has also been granted. Interests of plaintiff has been adequately safeguarded.
58. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that provisions of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 apply to Lal Dora property of defendant no 1 to 4.
59. Even otherwise the grievance against rejection of request to take action against defendants no 1 to 4 ought to have been agitated before prescribed authorities as per law.
60. Extent of alleged illegal construction by defendant No.1 to 4 has not been explained or proved by the plaintiff. This court in terms of Section 39 of Specific Relief Act 1963 cannot enforce or compel performance of unspecified illegal construction. So, decree of mandatory injunction cannot be passed in terms of Section 39 of Specific Relief Act 1963 which is as under:
"39. Mandatory injunctions.--
When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts. "
61. Issue No 4 is decided against the plaintiff on whom the onus lay.
RELIEF Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:43:14 +0530 CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 24 of 25
62. On the basis of the issue-wise findings of this Court the suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs:
A. Plaintiff is held entitled to a decree of Rs.48,10,000/- for damages of suit property with cost.
B. Defendants Nos.1 to 4 or their agents, associates, agents, etc. are restrained from raising any further construction harming property of plaintiff.
63. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly, after recovery of deficient court fees if any.
64. File be consigned to record room only after due completion and Digitally signed necessary action, as per Rules. VIKRAM by BALI VIKRAM BALI Date:
2025.07.04 16:43:22 +0530 Announced in the open Court today (Vikram Bali) i.e. on 04.07.2025 District Judge-02, North, (Order contains 25 pages) Rohini Court Complex, Delhi CS DJ No. 211/2019 Surender Rana Vs. Samay Singh Rana & Ors. Page no. 25 of 25