Delhi District Court
Balwant Singh vs D.D.A And Ors on 30 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PRIYA
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
CS SCJ No. 83821/2016
CNR No. DLST03-000208-2012
Sh. Balwant Singh (Since Deceased)
S/o Sh. Perma Nand
Through LRs
1. Rajesh Kumar
s/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh
R/o 187A, Arjun Nagar,
Near Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
2. Ms. Rukmani
D/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh
R/o 13/140, Trilok Puri, Chilla,
Saroda Khadar, East Delhi,
Delhi-110091.
3. Ms. Neelam
D/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
R/o 98/2, Ground Floor, Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi25.03.2025
4. Ms. Rekha
D/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh
W/o Sh. Gajraj Singh
R/o B-2-154, Jatav Basti, Bhola Colony,
Saran (Sector-22), Faridabad.
............Plaintiffs
NEHA
PRIYA Page No. 1 of 26
Digitally signed
by NEHA PRIYA
Date:
2025.08.30
15:43:11 +0530
CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025
versus
1) Delhi Development Authority (DDA),
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,
New Delhi
2) The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Town Hall, Delhi
3) The S.H.O.
P.S. Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi
4) Govt. Of N.C.T. Delhi
Through Deputy Commissioner (South)
Land Acquisition Collector,
(South) Delhi, M.B. Road, Saket
New Delhi
........Defendants
Date of Institution of Suit : 28.01.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2025.
Decision : Dismissed.
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
1. Plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing ground floor of house no.187A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi as shown in site NEHA PRIYA Page No. 2 of 26 Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:18 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 plan (hereinafter referred as "suit property") or forcefully dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom; mandatory injunction directing the defendant to repair and restore the suit property in its original condition; and damages.
2. It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff namely Sh. Balwant Singh expired, and vide order dated 22.11.2021, the suit was continued by his legal representatives.
Averments in the plaint
3. By virtue of the plaint, it is stated that property bearing no. 187 A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi is the absolute property of the plaintiff as it is an ancestral property, and ancestors of the plaintiff had been paying different types of taxes, and development charges as raised by the defendant no.1 and 2 as well as other authorities. This property came in occupation, peaceful possession and ownership of the plaintiff from his father Mr. Parmanand @ Mr. Parma after his death on 27.07.1990.
4. Prior to the plaintiff, his ancestors were residing in residential property no. 187A, Arjun Nagar, measuring about 165 sq.yds, New Delhi, falling in khasra no.75, Village Humanyupur, New Delhi which was purchased by his father Sh. Parma s/o Late Sh. Bhola vide registered sale deed dated 26.10.1966 from Sh. Ram Chander, who got the said property from Sh. Chaudhary Kaliram @ Kali. After death of the ancestor, the property was mutually divided among all legal heirs including the plaintiff. Pursuant NEHA PRIYA Page No. 3 of 26 Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:24 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 thereto, plaintiff got his share comprising of ground floor consisting of two rooms measuring 8 X 8.6, 6 X 8 (17.80 sq. mt.) and first floor having one room of 8 X 8.6 (9.38 sq. mt.) and it's total covered area is about 27.18 sq. mt.
5. Since birth, plaintiff has been residing continuously in the aforesaid house. Currently, plaintiff and his other family members are in peaceful possession of the suit property (comprising of two rooms at ground floor) as same are still in existence even after demolition of first floor. Due to demolition caused by the defendants, plaintiff and his other family members have suffered several problems/hindrances including financial loss of about Rs.2,30,000/- (for which suitable legal action shall be taken).
6. It is stated that the defendants did not issue any notice or show cause notice at any point of time regarding proposed demolition of the suit property or any kind of dispute regarding ownership of suit property. Suddenly, in January 2012, defendants started interfering with, and disturbing the peaceful possession and occupation of, the plaintiff to extort money from the plaintiff.
7. As the plaintiff did not fulfill their illegal demands, on 20.01.2012, defendant no.1 and 2 demolished maximum portion of the residential property bearing House No. 187A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi including the first floor constructed upon the said house of the plaintiff (demolished portion shown in red colour in site plan) leaving behind only the suit property comprising of ground floor, without giving any notice. It is averred that the NEHA PRIYA Page No. 4 of 26 Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:29 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 plaintiff has been paying all types of taxes and bills to the concerned authorities including defendant no. 1 and 2. However, defendants have been misusing their power against the plaintiff and his family members, and have been threatening, harassing and mentally and physically torturing the plaintiff and his family members.
8. It is further stated that there is a wall nearby the suit property, and on 20.01.2012, defendants have demolished the residential houses which were within the said wall but the defendants have also demolished major portion of the said residential house of the plaintiff which has no concern with the defendants. The property of the plaintiff was never in dispute with any of the defendants, and as such, the action of demolition of the said residential property of the plaintiff i.e. first floor above the suit property, was illegal and arbitrary, without following due process of law.
9. On 24.01.2012, some officials of defendant no. 1 and 2 came to the house of the plaintiff and started threatening him and his family members for removing the 'malba' of the demolished portion, and forcefully threw the plaintiff and his family members out of the suit property and took illegal possession.
10. On 22.01.2012, some officials and musclemen of the defendants again came to the suit property, and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit property otherwise he and his family members would face dire consequences. On 23.01.2012, and again on 24.01.2012, some officials of defendants also threatened to NEHA PRIYA Page No. 5 of 26 Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:34 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 demolish the remaining portion of the suit property.
11. It is contended that from time to time, officials of defendants have been threatening the plaintiff, and plaintiff has serious apprehension that the defendants will demolish the remaining portion of house no. 187A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi i.e. the suit property.
12. It is stated that plaintiff and his family have no other residential accommodation except the suit property, and its demolished portion is immediately required to be reconstructed, for which the defendants are liable to pay damages.
13. In the above facts and circumstances, plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:
"i). That a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction be passed against the defendants, their agents, employees, associates, authorized representatives etc. whoever on behalf of the defendants are demolishing the suit property i.e. house no. 187A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi.
ii). And the defendants, their agents, employees, associates, authorized representatives etc. whoever on behalf of the defendants be also permanently restrained to further illegal demolition on the suit property as shown in the site plan.
iii). And the defendants, their agents, employees, associates, authorized representatives etc. whoever on behalf of the defendants be also permanently restrained not to thrown out the plaintiff and his family members from the suit NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed Page No. 6 of 26 by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:41 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 property without due process of law and not to take possession of the said suit property forcefully.
iv). The decree of mandatory injunction be also passed against the defendant no.1, his agents, employees, associates, representatives etc. to bring the suit property in the original shape as it was earlier by constructing the portion on the suit property which was demolished by defendants.
v). Defendant no.1 & 2 may also be directed to repair the damages occurred on demolition and bring the house to the same shape as it was earlier by constructing on the suit property.
vi). Defendant no.1 & 2 also be directed to pay damages to the plaintiff and cost of the suit be also awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendants.
vii). Any other relief/s, direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice."
Written Statement of Defendant no.1
14. Defendant no. 1 opposed the suit and submitted that the suit property, which is stated to be House No.187-A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, actually falls in khasra no. 50/8 min. of village Humayunpur, which measures a total of 1620 sq. meters. The said land was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification dated 20.05.2010, and thereafter a further notification u/s 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.05.2011.
NEHA Page No. 7 of 26PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:46 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025
15. Vide the said notifications, it was stated that the total land having an area of 1620 sq. meters falling in khasra no. 50/8 min. of village Humayunpur was likely to be required to be taken by the government at public expense for a public purpose, as stated in the said notifications. Accordingly, Notification No. F9(1)/08/L&B/LA/1897 dated 19.05.2011 certified that the provisions of sub-section 1 of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act were applicable to the subject land vide Notification No.F.9(1)/08/L&B/LA/1897 dated 19.05.2011. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi directed the Land Acquisition Collector (South), Delhi to take possession of the suit land as well as the entire land mentioned hereinabove under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
16. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 has already paid sum of Rs. 27,27,292/- as compensation in respect of the said land. Letter dated 01.08.2011 was written by the Deputy Director of the DDA to the Deputy Secretary, Land Acquisition, under the Land & Building Department of the Govt. of Delhi, requesting the department to handover physical possession of the above mentioned land to the DDA at earliest. On 20.01.2012, the LAC (South) constituted a team of personnel which comprised the staff of LAC (South), as well as revenue staff and police personnel, who proceeded to the suit land, and the staff carried out demolition on the suit land wherein certain structure standing on the suit land was demolished. Thereafter, the vacant physical possession of the land was handed over to the DDA. NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 Page No. 8 of 26 15:43:52 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025
17.It is averred that the entire land which was notified, including the suit land i.e. land on which suit property is situated, now vests in DDA, and is under its control and possession. The said land was lawfully acquired as per the procedure contained in the Land Acquisition Act by the Govt., and thereafter handed over to defendant no.1 for public purpose.
18. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable ex-facie, since it indirectly amounts to a challenge of the acquisition of the land, which is impermissible in a civil court. Also, the suit is bad for want of service of the statutory notice u/s 53B of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as "DDA Act") upon defendant no.1 prior to its filing.
19.Further, the site plan filed along with the suit is improper and incomplete as it does not denote the complete and correct position at site. It does not show the neighboring surroundings of the suit property, and from the same, it is not possible to locate or properly identify the land or the suit property. Also, in the garb of simplicitor suit for injunction, plaintiff is seeking declaration of ownership/title in his favour over suit property, which is impermissible in law. Plaintiff is an encroacher on government land and has no right, title or interest in the suit property.
20. It is further contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action in his favour as no injunction can be sought against the true owner. Defendant no.1 is the true owner of the land/suit property having lawfully acquired the same. Possession has already been taken NEHA Page No. 9 of 26 PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:43:58 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 over on 20.01.2012 after demolition action at the suit property. Plaintiff has no right, title on interest in the suit property, and suit is liable to be dismissed.
21. Status report had been filed by defendant no.2 contending that main dispute was between plaintiff and defendant no.1.
Replication
22.In the replication, plaintiff denied the averments made in the written statement, and reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint.
Issues
23. Vide order dated 23.08.2012 and 18.12.2017, following issues were framed:
1. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of service of statutory notice u/s 53(b) of Delhi Development Authority Act? OPD.
2.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as alleged by defendant no. 4? OPD.
3.Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in prayer clause no. i to iii in the suit? OPP.
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed in prayer clause no. iv to vi in the suit? OPP.
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD NEHA PRIYA 6. Whether the suit land falls in Khasra no.75 as alleged Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: Page No. 10 of 26 2025.08.30 15:44:04 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 by plaintiff or not? OPP
7. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
24.PW1 Sh. Naveen, Record Keeper, Department of Delhi Archives brought summoned record i.e. document bearing registration no. 7768 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 1637, page 159 to 160 dated 28.10.1966, registered in the office of sub-registrar and exhibited it as Ex. PW1/1(OSR). He was duly cross-examined by defendants.
25. PW2 Sh. Shahid Iqbal, who translated Ex.PW1/1(OSR) from Urdu/Arabic language into English, proved the translation as Ex. PW2/A (colly.). He was duly cross-examined by defendants.
26. Original plaintiff Sh. Balwant Singh examined himself as PW3.
He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex PW3/A. He proved copy of updated election card as Ex. PW3/1 (OSR); copy of updated ration card as Ex. PW3/2 (OSR); copy of death certificate of Mr. Parma as Ex. PW3/3 (OSR); five photographs taken before and after demolition of first floor as Ex. PW3/4 to Ex. PW3/8 ; copy of old house tax receipts as Ex. PW3/9 to Ex. PW3/16 (OSR); copy of water bills/tax receipts, Ex. PW3/17 to Ex. PW3/18 (Colly.) (OSR); copy of electricity bills as Ex. PW3/19 to Ex. PW3/20 (OSR); copy of letters/bills/receipts of development charges paid to DDA as Ex. PW3/21 to Ex. PW3/26 (colly.) (OSR) ; copy of old map as Ex. PW3/27 (OSR); copy of sanitary plan as Ex.PW3/28 (OSR); site plan of the suit property NEHA PRIYA Page No. 11 of 26 Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:10 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 as Ex. PW3/29; four photographs after demolition of first floor as Ex. PW3/30 to Ex. PW3/33; and copy of property tax receipts dated 30.10.2004, 15.07.2005, 27.06.2006, 31.07.2009 and 26.07.2010 as Ex. PW3/37 to Ex. PW3/41 (OSR). He was duly cross-examined by defendants.
27. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, son of the plaintiff was examined as PW4. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW4/A and proved copy of khasra girdawari as Mark-PW4/1. During cross- examination, photographs were exhibited as Ex. PW4/D1X1 and Ex. PW4/D1X2, copy of MCD tax receipt for the year 2004-2005 were exhibited as Ex. PW4/DX3; copy of property tax receipt upto year 2011-12 was exhibited as Ex. PW4/DX4; colored copy of Ex. PW3/28 was exhibited as Ex. PW4/DX5 (OSR); naksha nazri plan was marked as Ex. PW4/DX6; and photographs were exhibited as Ex. PW4/DX7 to Ex. PW4/DX9 (Colly.). PW4 was duly cross-examined by defendants.
Defendant Evidence
28. D1W1 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, Patwari, ADM Office, South, Saket brought summoned recorded and exhibited copy of notification dated 20.05.2010 as Mark D1W1/1; copy of notification dated 19.05.2011 as Ex. D1W1/2; copy of notification dated 19.05.2011 as Ex. D1W1/3; copy of possession proceedings dated 20.01.2012 as Ex. D1W1/4; copy of Tatima field book as Mark D1W1/5; copy of joint survey report dated 03.12.2009 as Ex. D1W1/6; copy of joint survey report dated 07.05.2008 as Ex. D1W1/7; copy of part Aks shijra as Mark D1W1/8; copy of letter dated 01.08.2011 as NEHA Page No. 12 of 26 PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:17 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 Ex. D1W1/9 and copy of award no. 1/2013-14 dated 30.04.2013 of village Humayun Pur as Ex. D1W1/10 (OSR).
29. D1W1 was duly cross-examined by ld. counsel for plaintiff.
30. Defendant no.2 chose not to lead any evidence. Defendant no.3 and 4 did not come forward to lead evidence, and were proceeded ex-parte on 20.08.2024.
Appreciation of Evidence and Findings
31. The matter was ably argued by Sh. K.K Mavai, learned counsel for plaintiff, Ms. Promila Kapoor, learned counsel for defendant no.1/DDA and Sh. Rajiv Bhardwaj, learned counsel for defendant no.2/MCD. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and carefully perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issue No.1 Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of service of statutory notice u/s 53B of Delhi Development Authority Act? OPD.
32.Onus of proof that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 53B of DDA Act is on defendant no.1. As per section 53B of the DDA Act:
"53B. Notice to be given of suits:-
(1) No suit shall be instituted against the Authority, or any member thereof, or any of its officers or other employees, or any person acting under the directions of the Authority or any member or any officer or other employee of the Authority in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been, in the case of the Authority, left at its office, and in NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed Page No. 13 of 26 by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:24 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 any other case, delivered to, or left at the office or place of abode of, the person to be sued and unless such notice states explicitly the cause of action, the nature of relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed and the name and place of residence of the intending plaintiff and unless the plaint contains a statement that such notice has been so left or delivered.
(2) No suit such as is described in sub-section (1) shall, unless it is a suit for recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto, be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date on which the cause of action arises.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to apply to a suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit."
33.Plaintiff has filed the present suit for relief of injunction under the apprehension of forceful dispossession and illegal demolition of the suit property without any notice by defendant no.1.
34.Nature of the suit of the plaintiff is such that the purpose of the same would have been defeated in case the plaintiff had waited for the statutory period of notice. Therefore, it is held that the suit of the plaintiff is not bad for want of notice under Section 53B of DDA Act. The issue stands answered against the defendants accordingly.
Issue No.2 Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as alleged by defendant no. 4? OPD.
35.Onus of proof of this issue is on defendant no.4, however, defendant no.4 has failed to lead any evidence in support of the contention that this court does not have any jurisdiction over the NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Page No. 14 of 26 Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:30 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 present suit. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence in this regard, court cannot presume lack of jurisdiction. The suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, and thus, this court has jurisdiction in the present case. The issue stands answered against the defendants accordingly.
Issue No.6 Whether the suit land falls in Khasra no.75 as alleged by plaintiff or not? OPP
36. As the findings of this issue shall have a bearing on the other issues, this issue is being decided first.
37.Onus of proof of this issue is on the plaintiff. While the plaintiff claims that he is owner of the suit property bearing no.187A which is situated in khasra no.75 and DDA has unauthorizedly demolished part of the property and is threatening to demolish the rest, DDA claims that the alleged suit property is situated in khasra no.50/8 min, which is the acquired land of DDA wherein plaintiff is a mere trespasser.
38. In order to prove ownership over the suit property, plaintiff has relied upon sale deed of unpartitioned land Ex.PW1/1. He also relied upon entries in khasra girdawari i.e. Mark PW4/1 to show possession of his father over the suit property. Besides, he also relied upon documents such as ration card, election card, house tax receipts, property tax receipts, water bills, electricity bills etc. to show his ownership / possession of the suit property.
NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Page No. 15 of 26 Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:35 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025
39. As far as revenue record Mark PW4/1 is concerned, it is settled law that mere entry in revenue record neither proves possession nor title over the property. Further, even the revenue record does not contain the name of the six sons including original plaintiff after death of Sh. Parma. Same is admitted by PW4 in his cross- examination.
40. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that the suit property was never demarcated and also that plaintiff does not have any government issued plan or map to show that the property falls in khasra no.75 as claimed. No site plan is annexed with Ex.PW1/1 and no other document relied by the plaintiff contains the khasra number.
41.Thus, plaintiff has not placed any documents on record to show that the property bearing no.187A, part of which is claimed to be the suit property in the present plaint, falls in khasra no.75. During cross-examination as well, it was admitted by PW3 that all the documents relied upon by PW3 and PW4 pertain to house no. 187A and do not mention the khasra number. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence in this regard, plaintiff has failed to prove that suit property falls in khasra no. 75. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No.3 and 4Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed in prayer clause no. i to iii in the suit? OPP.
and Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction, as NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Page No. 16 of 26 Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:41 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 prayed in prayer clause no. iv to vi in the suit? OPP.
42. Both these issues can be decided by way of common discussion, and are being taken up together. In order to prove his entitlement for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction, plaintiff has to prove his legal right over the constructed portion/plot measuring about 27.18 square meter in the property bearing number 187A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi i.e. the suit property.
43. It is a cardinal principle of law that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs, and prove his case as set out in the plaint. In order to prove his right and ownership over the suit property, plaintiff examined PW1 Naveen (Record Keeper) who proved sale deed dated 28.10.1966 as Ex.PW1/1 in respect of the property no. 187- A. Since the document Ex. PW1/1 was executed in Urdu language, its English translation was proved by PW2 Shahid Iqbal as Ex.PW2/A. Sale deed Ex.PW1/1, in respect of land measuring 165 square yards situated in Abadi Arjun Nagar, Humayun Pur, Delhi having built up house no. 187A thereupon, has been registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi in favour of Sh. Parma, father of the original plaintiff.
44. It is deposed by the original plaintiff Sh. Balwant Singh and his son Sh. Rajesh Kumar (PW3 and PW4) that after the death of father of Sh. Balwant Singh, said property was mutually divided among all the legal heirs including Sh. Balwant Singh, and as such, out of the 165 square yards area, he got his share comprising of ground floor consisting of two rooms measuring 8 X 8.6, 6 X 8 NEHA (17.80 sq. mt.) and first floor having one room of 8 X 8.6 (9.38 sq. PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Page No. 17 of 26 Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:48 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 mt.) having total covered area about 27.18 sq. mt. in part of khasra no.75, property no.187A, Arjan Nagar, New Delhi.
45.PW3 and PW4 further testified that they, along with other family members, have been residing continuously in the aforesaid property even after demolition of first floor, which is part of property no.187A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi.
46. It is alleged that on 20.01.2012, defendants no.1 and 2 demolished the first floor without giving any notice. Original plaintiff Sh. Balwant Singh has claimed that he has been paying house tax, water tax, electricity bill, etc. since more than 50 years to concerned authorities as per documents, Ex.PW3/9 to Ex.PW3/20.
47.Now, let us examine as to what PW3 deposed in his cross-
examination in respect of measurements, location and identity of property in question. Relevant portion of cross-examination of PW3 reads as under:
"..... I am an illiterate. My father's name is Late Sh. Perma and he had six sons and two daughters. Names of my five brothers are Sh. Ishwar Singh, Sh. Inder, Sh. Haripal, Sh. Teju and Sh. Kushal. My father did not possess any land except the suit property. The total measurement of property no. 187A is 165 sq. yards. My father had partitioned the suit land amongst his six sons including me. The suit land was equally partitioned amongst six sons of Late Sh. Perma. One of my brother Sh. Inder expired and thereafter, his son sold his share in the property bearing no. 187A. The other five sons of Sh. Perma are residing in their respective property which came to their share. I cannot say the approximate measurement of the property which is under occupation of Sh. Ishwar Singh, however, he has constructed five NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Page No. 18 of 26 Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:53 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 storey building on his land, which came to his share. This property also bears the same number as 187A. My brother Sh. Inder had sold the property to the builder, who constructed the storey building on the land coming to the share of Sh. Inder. Sh. Haripal had also got constructed five storey building on his land through the builder. Sh. Tej had constructed four storey building on the land which came to his share and Sh. Kushal had also constructed five storey byilding on his own on the land, which came to his share. All the properties of six brother bear the property no. 187A, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not disclosing the measurement of the property which is under occupation of my five brothers.
All my brothers and myself are paying property tax independently in respect of the property falling in the respective shares of all six songs of Sh.Perma. We have not got any mutation done in the records of MCD / SDMC in respect of property no.187A after the death of my father.
Q. Can you check the site plans ExPW3-27, Ex.PW3/28 and Ex.PW3/29 filed by you in the present suit and answer questions in respect of these plans? Ans. No, I cannot read and see these plans and cannot answer any question on this.
At this stage, witness has been shown photographs Ex. PW3/4 to Ex. PW3/8 and Ex. PW3/30 to Ex. PW3/33 and has been asked to show whether these photographs pertain to the suit property and whether in any of the photographs he can point out the buildings of his five brothers. The witness states that he cannot answer any question pertaining to the photographs as he cannot see properly."
48. As stated above, the case of the original plaintiff/PW3, in short, is that the total measurement of the property which was purchased by his father was 165 square yards in property number 187A. He deposed that the property was partitioned by his father in six portions, and thereafter his five brothers are residing in their respective shares of this property. However, plaintiff failed to disclose the measurement of the property which fell in the share of NEHA his brothers, and is currently in their occupation. PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Page No. 19 of 26 Date: 2025.08.30 15:44:59 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025
49.PW3 also failed to indicate the portions of the property partitioned out of the property number 187A in the photographs Ex.PW3/4 to Ex.PW3/8 and Ex.PW3/30 to Ex.PW3/33. If at all the plaintiff was in possession over any portion of land in the property bearing no. 187A, then the said portion must be adjoining to the portions which fell in the share of his brothers, but the plaintiff failed to place any photograph or site plan on record to establish that the portion of land on which he is claiming ownership right i.e. suit property is adjoining to the property of his brothers. No such properties of his brothers are shown in the site plans Ex.PW3/27 to PW3/29 filed by the plaintiff. No such buildings are indicated in any of the photographs on record. There is absolutely no evidence on record to this effect.
50. Similarly, PW4 Rajesh deposed as under:
"There are 6 building constructed in Khasra no. 75 out of which 5 buildings belong to my uncle/ chacha and one structure is in my possession. All the 6 buildings bear property no. 187-A, Arjun Nagar. The total land purchased by my grand father in khasra no. 75 was 165 sq yards. The 6 buildings were constructed by my father and his brother in their respective portions in the year 1981 and thereafter they have constructed the properties according to their needs. The properties were constructed after taking permission from SDMC. There is no sanction plan of the building but we have sanitary plan approved by the MCD in the year 1981. The said sanitary plan was approved for the property no. 187-A belonging to my father. It is correct that the said sanitary plan does not show for which building out of 6 buildings constructed belongs to."
51. In order to prove that total land measuring 27.18 square meter fell to his share pursuant to the alleged partition, plaintiff should have NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:45:05 +0530 Page No. 20 of 26 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 come clean on the exact measurement of the land which is in occupation of his brothers. Above deposition of PW3 and PW4 miserably fails to indicate or disclose the same, thereby raising serious doubt on the case set up by the original plaintiff.
52. Admittedly, the suit property has not been demarcated, and the original plaintiff has not produced any document in support of his ownership of the suit property. Reliance is placed on sale deed Ex.PW1/1 which is in name of father of original plaintiff in respect of the undivided property prior to the alleged partition. This sale deed, Ex PW1/1 too does not have any site plan annexed to it in order to prove exact location of the property.
53. Further, original plaintiff has stated in his cross-examination that all six partitioned portions of property no. 187 have been numbered 187A. So, there is no basis to conclude that even the documents filed pertain to the alleged property of original plaintiff herein and not of his brothers. As per the site plans filed by plaintiff himself, the other five portions of property 187 have not been identified or reflected. Thus, there is no basis for the court to presume that the documents filed and relied upon by the plaintiffs pertain to the undivided suit property shown in the site plan.
54. In his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that suit property was demolished by the government. Photographs of the property duly relied upon by the plaintiffs, establish that property on which plaintiffs are claiming right stands substantially demolished by NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed Page No. 21 of 26 by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:45:12 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 defendants after demolition drive was undertaken following the acquisition of land by DDA.
55.Plaintiffs have heavily relied upon photographs Ex.
PW4/DX9(colly.), Ex.PW4/D1X1 and Ex.PW4/D1X2 to prove that the suit property falls outside the boundary wall of the acquired land by DDA, however, no such conclusion can be drawn from the said photographs. On the contrary, the suit property appears to be within the boundary wall.
56.From the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the plaintiffs have failed to prove any substantive right over the suit property in question or land underneath, and rather admit that construction over the land stands demolished by DDA, possession whereof has also been taken by the DDA. The sale deed and other documents relied upon by the plaintiffs do not indicate that these documents are in respect of the portion of the land or the suit property over which plaintiffs are claiming right. As per findings in issue no.6 above, plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit property falls in kharsa no.75. As stated above, the plaintiffs have also failed to disclose the measurement of the land over which construction has already been raised in the undivided property by his siblings.
57. In absence of any substantial proof with respect to location of the suit property and right of the original plaintiff/plaintiffs therein, reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the nature of mandatory and permanent injunction cannot be granted to him in the present suit. NEHA Accordingly, these issues stand answered against the plaintiffs. PRIYA Page No. 22 of 26 Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 15:45:18 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 Issue No.5 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on the present form? OPD
58. Main ground on which maintainability of the present suit is challenged by the defendants is that this simplicitor suit for injunction is not maintainable, and that plaintiff was necessarily required to file a suit for declaration of ownership along with injunction.
59. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy,1 and I quote:
"13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/ or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly:
13.1 Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
13.2 Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
13.3 Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the NEHA defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of PRIYA dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: 2025.08.30 1 (2008) 4 SCC 594.15:45:25 +0530 Page No. 23 of 26
CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration possession and injunction.
14. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where the plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a Suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title." (emphasis supplied).
60. As held in the previous issues, alleged sale document Ex.PW1/1 as well as revenue record Mark PW4/1 and other documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not establish any right, title or interest of the plaintiff in the suit property. In fact, it is not even clear whether the said documents pertain to the suit property as shown in site plan. Thus, there are no documents on record to NEHA PRIYA Digitally signed by NEHA PRIYA Date: Page No. 24 of 26 2025.08.30 15:45:30 +0530 CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025 show that the original plaintiff or the plaintiffs herein have any right, title or interest in the suit property.
61. Despite not having any document of ownership or proof of possession of the suit property as shown in the site plan, the plaintiff has filed this simplicitor suit for injunction, which is not maintainable in view of the legal position discussed above. This issue is accordingly decided in favor of defendants.
Issue No.7 Relief
62. In view of the findings on aforesaid issues, documents on record, pleadings of the parties, and evidence led, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case, and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
63. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiffs stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
64. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
65. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
NEHA
NEHA PRIYA
PRIYA Date:
2025.08.30
15:45:35
+0530
NEHA PRIYA
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi/30.08.2025
Page No. 25 of 26
CS SCJ 83821/2016 Balwant Singh (through LRs) v. DDA & Ors 30.08.2025
Announced by me in the open court today on 30.08.2025. All the 26 pages of this judgment have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signedNEHA by NEHA PRIYA Date: PRIYA 2025.08.30 15:45:41 +0530 NEHA PRIYA Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/30.08.2025 Page No. 26 of 26