Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Jain vs Uoi on 3 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PANDEY, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ
(WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No.8270/2016
CNR no.DLWT03-000015-1990
1. Shri Anil Kumar Jain
S/o Late Shri Mahabir Pershad
2. Shri Praveen Kumar Jain,
Through its GPA
Shri Anil Kumar Jain
Both R/o House No.61, Gali Khajanchi,
Chandini Chowk,
Delhi-110006. ......Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, Delhi.
2. Delhi Administration
(a) Through its Lt. Governor
5, Alipur, Road,
Delhi-110007.
(b) Through the Under Secretary(revenue)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi-110007.
3. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman,
Department of (NL),
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
4. Shri Kundan Lal- deceased
Through his LRs
(Sr. no.a & b substituted
vide order dated 03.03.2005
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 1 /54
by the court of Shri T.R.Nawal
ADJ, Delhi.
a) Shri Satish Kumar,
b) Shri Baldev Raj,
c/o M/s Friends Motor workshop
Near Hindustan Petroleum
G.T. Raod, Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
5. Gurjeet Singh- deceased
(Sr. no.a to c substituted
vide order dated 05.04.2017
a) Shri Balbir Singh,-son
b) Shri Pritam Kaur-widow,
c) Shri Biljit Kaur- daughter
All r/o 161, Block-A-2, Bhagat colony,
Sant Nagar, Delhi.
6. Shri Gurucharan Singh- deceased
Through his LRs
(Sr. no.a) to (h) substituted
vide order dated 25.07.1994
a) Mrs. Mahinder Kaur- widow
b) Shri Jagtar Singh- son
c) Shri Subhash Singh-son
d) Shri Lakhvinder Singh-son
e) Shri Hardev Singh-
f) Shri Jarnail Singh-son
g) Ms. Gurdeep Kaur- daughter
All R/o A-159, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi -110033
h) Smt. Jasbir Kaur- daughter
W/o Shri Gurucharan Singh
R/o Khera Pali colony,
Near Steel Tanki, Jhansi road,
Shivpuri, (M.P)
(Sr. no.6(a) to h substituted
vide order dated 15.07.1994. ......Defendants
Date of Institution : 06.07.1990
Date of final arguments : 24.12.2024
Date of decision : 03.03.2025
Decision : DISMISSED
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 2 /54
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
PLAINT
1. In brief it is the case of the plaintiffs that originally Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain (now deceased) s/o late Sh. Paras Das, r/o House no.61, Gail Khajanchi, Chandni chowk, Delhi-110006 was the owner/landlord and had been in continuous possession of the land bearing Khasra no.403/90/1 admeasuring 7 Bighas and 12 Biswas, situated at village Azadpur, Delhi and was recorded in the Record of Rights pertaining to the aforesaid plot of land 'KHUD KHASHT' in the relevant year 1953-1954. The possession of the same continued with Late Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain at all relevant times through his various tenants till 1975. A Civil suit for Declaration bearing no.422/1969 was filed by said Shri Mahabir Pershed Jain against Gaon Sabha Azadpur and ors on 10.02.1965 for declaring the vesting of the aforesaid Land in Gaon Sabha Azadpur as illegal, ultra-vires and without Jurisdiction, and that said Late Sh. Mahabir Pershad Jain is entitled to remain in possession of the aforesaid Land as its proprietor or Bhumidar. The aforesaid suit bearing no.422/1969 was decided on 2.1.1970 from the Hon'ble Court of Sh.Man Singh Saini, Sub Judge Ist Class, Delhi in favour of said Shri Mahabir Persbad Jain and against the Gaon Sabha Azadpur and ors to the effect that the land bearing Khasra no.91 measuring 1 Bigha 1 Bishwa and Khasra no.403/90/ measuring 7 Bigha 13 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 3 /54 Biswas, totalling 8 Bigha and 14 Biswas situated in village Azadpur Union Territory of Delhi doos not vest in the Gaon Sabha Azadpur and its inclusion as the property of Gaon Sabha is wrong, illegal, Ultra-Vires, Void, without jurisdiction and said Sh. Mahabir Pershad Jain is entitled to remain in possession of the suit Land as Proprietor or Bhumidar.
2. Against the said Judgement dated 02.01.1970 the Gaon Sabha Azadpur and others filed an appeal bearing No.91/1970 against said Sh.Mahabir Pershad Jain. The said appeal was also dismissed in default of appearance of the Gaon Sabha Azadpur & Ors on 12.01.1972 by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. B.K. Agnihotri, Senior Sub Judge at Delhi. Thereafter in view of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Hathi vs Sunder Singh in 1971 to the effect that the civil Courts has no jurisdiction in the aforesaid matter, said Sh. Mahabir Pershad Jain again filed a case bearing no.71/RA/82 & previous no. 25/RA/75) before the Revenue Assisstant, Delhi thereby declaring himself to be the Owner/Proprietor/Bhumidar of the aforesaid Land, as no suit for disspossion was filed by Gaon Sabha Azadpur, Delhi against said Sh. Mahabir Pershad Jain. During the course of proceedings before the Revenue Assisstant, said Sh. Mahabir Pershad Jain expired on 28.06.1980, and upon his death the Plaintiffs being his only two sons, legal heirs and representatives of said Sh. Mahabir Pershad Jain, filed an application for their substitution in the aforesaid case in place of said Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain but the said application was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court of Shri Nathu Singh, Revenue Assisstant, Delhi on 29.09.1981 and the suit was also dismissed Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 4 /54 as abated. Against the said order dated 29.9.1981 the Plaintiffs filed a Revision before the Hon'ble Court of Financial Commissioner, Delhi and vide Order dated 7.6.1982 the Hon'ble Court of Sh. D.K. Dass, Financial Commissioner Delhi allowed the Revision filed and thereafter the remand tback the matter to the Hon'ble Court of Shri B.S.Rana, the Revenue Assistant, Delhi who again dismissed the case. Against the said dismissal Order of the Hon'ble court of Sh.B.S Rana the Plaintiffs went into an appeal titled as Anil Kumar Jain and another vs UOI.
3. The said appeal was ultimately decided on 28.07.1988 from the Hon'ble Court of Sh. D.R. Nafri Additional Collector, Delhi in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Union of India and others, thereby declaring the Plaintiffs to be the Bhumidars of the aforesaid land in question u/s 85 of Delhi Land Reform Act 1954. Out of the aforesaid land bearing Khasra no.403/90 certain portions of the aforesaid land bearing Khasra no.403/90/2 admeasuring 9 Biswas, bearing Khasra no.403/90/2/1 admeasuring 2 Bighas 9 Biswas and bearing Khasra no.403/90/2/2 admeasuring 10 Biswas, thus totalling 3 Bighas and 8 Biswas. Most specifically shown in Stripes in the Plan filed in this suit) were acquired by virtue of Seperate Awards bearing Nos. 1001, 1545 and 1545 A respectively, leaving thereby still a remaining portion of the aforesaid Land admeasuring 4 bighas and 4 biswas to be under the Ownership and Bhumidari rights of the Plaintiffs.
4. The aforesaid remaining portion of the aforesaid Land at the present moment, are being occupied and used since the year Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 5 /54 1950s by various tenants of the plaintiff i.e defendant no.4 to 6. Recently in the middle of May 1990 the defendants no. 1 to 3 with the help of their respective/agent along with Police Officials came to the disputed Land and began to demolish without any just cause the superstructures built over the aforesaid remaining portion of the said land (most Specifically shown in red Colour in the siteplan filed in this suit) and which is under the tenancies of the defendants Nos. 4 to 6. At the request of the defendants no.4 to 6 to find out the correct legal position, the defendants no.1 to 3 stopped the demolition of the superstructures built over the aforesaid land. However the defendants no.1 to 3 threatened to come again for the aforesaid purposes. No notice of whatsoever nature in respect of the aforementioned wrongful and illegal demolition has been served by the defendants no.1 to 3 either upon the plaintiffs or upon the defendants no.4 to 6. The defendants no.1 to 3 have no right, title or interest of whatsoever nature to demolish the surperstructures built over the aforesaid land and also to disturb the lawful occupation. Thus the present suit has been filed with the following prayers:
i) That a decree by way of permanent injunction be passed against the defendants no.1 to 3 holding the defendants no.1 to 3 jointly as well as individually liable for the same and in favour of the Plaintiffs, restraining the defendants no.1 to 3, their respective agents, employees and associates from demolishing the various superstructures built over the aforesaid remaining portion of land bearing Khasra no.403/90/1 admeasuring. 4 Bighas and 4 Biswas situated at Azadpur Village Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 6 /54 Delhi(most specifically shown in red Colour in the siteplan), which is under the ownership, proprietorship and Bhumidari Rights of the Plaintiffs and which is in the Lawful occupation and use of the defendants no.4 to 6 within their rights as Tenants in respect of their respective tenanted portions / Superstructures.
Written Statement of defendant no.1.
5. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 whereby stated that the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties as Union of India through Delhi Administration through its Lt. Governor are not the parties to the suit. There is no cause of action against the answering defendents as the plaintiffs are not the recorded owner of 4 Bigha and 4 Biswa falling in Khasra no.403/90/1 as claimed. The petitioner was declared Bhumidhar of Khasra No. 403/90/1 measuring 3 Bigha add 11 Biswas Khasra No. 403/90/2/1 (2-9) was acquired under Land Acquisition Act vide Aw. No. 1545 under the ownership of Gaon Sabha. Khasra no.403/90/2/2 (0-10) was acquired vide award no.1545-A under the ownership of Gaon Sabha and khasra no.403/90/2 (0-9) and (404/90 (0-6) were acquired in award No.1001. The contention of the plaintiff that remaining portion of the land remained as 4 Bigha and 4 Biswas under his Bhumidhari rights is wrong and denied. Also, stated that no employee of the answering defendents visited the site on the day and date mentioned by plaintiffs in plaint.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 7 /54 Written statement of defendant no.2.
6. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 stating that no cause of action has arose, hence the suit deserves to be dismissed. The suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. Gaon Sabha Azadpur. It is further submitted that the decree of Civil Court is not binding on the Gaon Sabha in view of the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is further submitted that Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain never remained in possession of the suit land. Hence the question of filing the suit u/s 86-A of D. L. R. Act does not arise. Some portion has been acquired and D.D.A is the owner of the same and the remaining portion is the property of the Gaon Sabha. That the suit land is the property of the Gaon Sabha Azadpur and the area of this village has been urbanised and as such the Deputy Commissioner is the owner of the land in suit. There is no necessity of giving any notice because the replying defendants are the owners of the suit land and can take any legal action against any person who tried to encroach upon their land.
Written statement of defendant no.3/DDA.
7. 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 award no.1545 and Khasra no.403/90/2/2/ stands acquired vide avard no.1545(A). The possession of both these khasras was taken any over by the Government and subsequently placed at the disposal of the DDA through notifications dated 05.09.1964 and 4.3.1978 respectively. The land measuring 9 Biswas out of khasra no.403/90/1 was acquired Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 8 /54 through award No.1001 of village Azadpur for widening of road. Remaining land measuring 4 Bigha 4 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 dated 20.08.1974. Thus, the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and has no locus standi to file the present suit as they are recent rank tresspasser over the Govt. land, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It is submitted that the DDA was not a party before the revenue court or any Civil Court case filed by late Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain.
Written statement of defendant no.4 to 6.
8. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendan tno.4 to 6 admitted case of plaintiffs to the extent that previously Shri Mahavir Pershad was the landlord of the premises under the tenancy/possession of the answering defendant and they were inducted as tenants in their respective portions in the fifties and have been in continuous possession of the same since than as tenants. They were making the payment of rent previously to Shri Mahavir Parshad Jain and efter his death to the present plaintiffs. It is submitted that the answering of defendants were not party to any proceedings before civil or revenue court. It is further submitted that they have been carrying on their business in their respective names and have been using the premises for commercial purpose. It is also stated that plaintiff no.1 started issuing receipts in his own name immediately after the death of Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain of the rents paid to him. DDA or any other body has no right or title to the suit land.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 9 /54 Replication
9. In replication to the written statement of defendants again the plaintiff reiterated the same facts as stated in plaint and denied the objections raised by defendant no.1 to 3 regarding their ownership.
ISSUES
10. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 05.08.2024:-
i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from demolishing the structure built over remaining portion of land in khasra no.403/90/1 measuring 4 bigha 4 biswas situated at Azadpur, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan?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-3
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
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 OPP
v). Whether the present suit is barred under Section 53-B of DD Act?OPD-3
vi). Whether present suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD-3
vii) Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 10 /54
11. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and he has reiterated the averments of the plaint by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that plaintiff is owner in possession of land bearing Khasra No.403/90/1 village Azadpur, Delhi measuring 4 bigha 04 biswas and placed on record. Certified Copy of the Khatauni and Khasra Girdawari are Ext. PW.1/1 and PW.1/2. He stated in Ex.Pw1/A i.e avidence affidavit that the land has already been demarcated by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and the land of the plaintiff is confirmed to be falling in khasra 403/90/1 and at no point of time DDA had come in possession of the suit land. That defendants No.1 to 3 including DDA have no right, title or interest in the suit land. Defendant no.6 Shri Kundan Lal, tenant of the plaintiff had filed a suit in respect of land under his tenancy which suit was decreed, Certified copy of the judgment is Ex. PW.1/5. PW-1 rely upon the following documents-
i) Ex.PW1/1 is the certified copy of the khatoni for the year 1984-1985.
ii) Ex.PW1/2 is the certified copy of Khasra-Girdawari for the year 1994-95.
iii) Ex.PW1/3 is the notice u/s 80 CPC addressed to government authorities dated 19.05.1990.
iv) Ex.PW1/4 registered AD and postal receipt de- exhibited as Mark -A.
v) Ex.PW1/5 is the certified copy of judgment passed by Sh. Sudhir Kumar Jain the then Civil Judge dated 13.07.1995.
vi) Ex.PW1/6 is the site plan.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 11 /54
vii) Ex.PW1/7 is the certified copy of order of Ld ADM dated 28.07.1998.
12. PW-1 in his cross examination denied the suggestion that the entire land in no.403/90/1 is government land. He also denied the suggestion that he and his tenants are wrongful and unauthorized encroacher having no legal right on the suit land which is government land. He further denied the suggestion that the demarcation has not been done as per the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 28.03.2007 and does not correctly depict the location of the suit land. He showed ignorance whether any site plan of the suit land was filed or not and whether the said site plan was verified by the concerned Patwari or not. He denied the suggestion that the petition before the Ld Revenue Assistant was with respect to other land therefore copy of the said petition has not been filed in this case. He also denied the suggestion that the aforesaid petrol pumps are constructed over gramsabha land. He denied the suggestion that Gurjeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh were not in possession of the suit land at the time of filing of the petition before the revenue assistant. He also denied that the site plan Ex.PW1/6 as incorrect as it does not show the location of the suit land and does not clearly depict the suit land. He admitted that the dimension of the land shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/6 is not mentioned therein. He denied the suggestion that he have not shown the structure built on the suit land in the site plan as no such structure existed at the site at the time of filing of the suit. He admitted that he was not paying any house tax of the structure. He denied the suggestion that there was no electricity Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 12 /54 and water supply at the built up structure at the time of filing of the suit. He stated that one of the petrol pump was partly constructed and other two were completely constructed on the suit land. The witness was shown the site plan EX PW1/6, he affirms that the land in khasra no 403/90/1 is in between points E to F marked today on Ex PW 1/6.
13. Another witness PW-2 Deven Naharwal, Patwari SDM office was a formal witness who brought on record the relevant entry of khatoni of village Azadpur for the year 1988-1989 and khatoni for the year 1994-1995 with respect to khasra no 403/90/1. The said khatonies are Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2 respectively. He also brought on record the khasra girdavri of the year 2015-2016 on record of the khasra no.403/90/2/1 and 403/90/2/2 which is Ex.Pw2/3 and stated that there is no record of khasra girdavri of khasra no 403/90/1 in the year 2015-2016.
Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 29.08.2024 on the statement of counsel for plaintiff and matter was fixed for DE.
DEFENDANT WITNESS
14. Defendant examined Shri Kunal Kumawat as DW3W-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.D3W1/A he reiterated the same facts as in his W.S of DDA and placed on record the following documents:-
i). Award no. 1545 of village Azadpur is Ex. D3W1/1 (objected to mode of proof),
ii). Award по 1545A of village Azadpur-Ex. D3W1/2(objected to mode of proof), Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 13 /54
iii). Notification under Section 22(i) of DD Act dated 05.09.1964- Ex. D3W1/3 (objected to mode of proof),
iv). Notification under Section 22(i) of DD Act dated 04.03.1972- Ex. D3W1/4 (objected to mode of proof),
v). Possession proceedings of award no. 1545 and 1545-A of Village Azadpur- Ex. D3W1/5 (colly.) (objected to mode of proof),
vi). Notification no. RNZ/526 dated 23.05.1963 Ex. D3W1/6 (objected to mode of proof),
vii). Notification bearing SO no.2190 dated 20.08.1974 - Ex.
D3W1/7 (objected to mode of proof).
The said witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff but he being a formal witness who brought on record above documents, his cross examination herein is thus, not discussed.
15. Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 16.12.2024 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for parties and carefully gone through the record as well as Judgment cited by the counsels on both sides.
Issue wise findings are as follows:-
16. ( a) Issue no.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from demolishing the structure built over remaining portion of land in khasra no.403/90/1 measuring 4 bigha 4 biswas situated at Azadpur, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan?OPP.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 14 /54 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:-
61. 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 15 /54 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;
(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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 16 /54 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.
17. In view of the above principles, let us now examine the case of the plaintiff on the basis of their plaint. Both the plaintiffs claimed injunction against defendant no.1,2 and 3 on the basis of the Bhumidari rights derived from their deceased father Mahabir Pershad Jain. The para no.1 of the plaint stated that originally Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain was the owner/landlord and had been in continous possession of the land bearing khasra no.403/90/1 situated at village Azadpur and was recorded in the records of right pertaining to the above land as 'Khud khast' in the relevant year of 1953-1954 but there is no document on record to show the possession of suit property in favor of plaintiffs or their deceased father since 1953-1954, also no such record of right pertaining to the said year has been placed on record. Further the plaintiffs have not examined any witness to substantiate their claim of possession since 1953-1954 over suit property. The defendant no.4 to 6 who also claim to be in possession as tenant since fifties in their WS have also not been examined by plaintiffs to corroborate the said facts of possession since 1950s. The document Ex.PW1/1 i.e Khatoni of the year 1984-1985 mentions the name of the plaintiffs for the first time, also the document Ex.PW1/2i.e Khasra Girdawari pertaining to year 1994-1995 of Khasra no.403/90/1 is in the name of Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 17 /54 plaintiffs. Interestingly, the summoned witness i.e PW-2 Halkapatwari also brought on record the document Ex.PW2/2 i.e Khatoni of the year 1994-1995 pertaining to khasra no.403/90/1 which shows the entry in favour of Ms. Rupam Jain w/o Shri Raj Kamal made in her favour by way of family settlement by order of Hon'ble High court of Delhi dated 13.02.1991. The present plaint is silent as to relation of Ms.Rupam Jain with plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in plaint claim themselves to be only LRs of deceased Mahabir Pershad, the status of their mother or any siblings has not been clearly stated by them which afgain show the lack of bonafide on their part. Thus, there are two documents of the same year 1994 and 1995 showing the entry in the name of different persons. Perusal of said documents shows that the Bhumidari rights stated to have commenced from 1988-1989 only and thus these documents are self contradictory to the pleadings of plaintiff whereby they have stated to have that Bhumirdari rights since 1950. The documents which are on record filed by plaintiff only show entry in their name in revenue record, there is no other document w.r.t possession. Para no.2 of present plaint stated that since year 1950 the various portions of aforesaid land i.e khasra no.403/90/1 has been let out to various tenants till 1975 but again no document on record has been filed with respect to any tenancy rights created by the deceased father or the plaintiffs in favour of any person moreso defendant no.4,5 and 6 since 1950. The plaintiffs have not examined either of the said defendants to establish the fact that they are continuing with the tenancy in the suit land under the plaintiffs. Interestingly the said defendant no 4 and 5 have also filed seperate suits pending before this court for same relief of injunction against defendant Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 18 /54 no1,2and 3 whereby they have stated in their respective plaints that the present plaintiff Anil jain has colluded with government officials to disposses them as they refused to increase rent as desired by Anil jain. This stand of the defendants is different from stand taken by them in WS filed in present case. Thus, clearly the defendants no4 and 5 have not been examined by plaintiffs to avoid embarrasment and thereby further weaken the plaintiff case.
It is alleged by plaintiffs in the para no.14 of the plaint that in May 1990 the defendant no.1,2 and 3 with the help of associates namely Shri Ram Naresh Yadav and Shri Nagar alongwith the police came to the disputed land and began to demolish the super structures built over the remaining portion of said land as shown in red color of site plan Ex.PW1/6 which is under the tenancy of defendant no.4,5 and 6. The plaintiff to corroborate the said fact of visit by officials of defendants no.1 to 3 for demolition of super-structure in suit land have not led any evidence, placed photographs on record nor examined any person to prove the alleged act of demolition by the defendant no.1 to 3 though the said fact has been strongly denied by the defendants in their written statement. Thus, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove any overt act on part of defendant no 1,2 and 3 w.r.t demolition or dispossession. It appears to be false story made out by plaintiffs to make false claim over suit property by way of simlicitor suit of injunction. The plaintiffs to prove their case have examined only one real witness i.e PW-1 Anil Kumar Jain. During cross examination the PW-1 as discussed before denied the suggestion that defendant no.5 and 6 were not in possession at the time of filing of the present suit but Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 19 /54 apart from bare denial, the plaintiffs have not led any evidence to show the possession of defendant no.5 and 6 on the suit property before the filing of the present suit. The PW-1 has also denied the suggestion that there were no super structure on the suit land at the time of filing of the suit but again apart from bare denial no positive evidence has been led by plaintiffs to prove the same. The plaintiff PW-1 also denied the suggestion that the petrol pumps under Khasra no.490/30/1 were running on the Gram Sabha Land but again no evidence led by the plaintiffs to show that the said petrol pumps as shown in site plan Ex.PW1/6 to be in the khasra no.490/30/1 under the control and management of plaintiffs. The PW-1 admitted to not have paid any house tax, electricity or water bill at the time of filing of present suit concerning the suit property and also he has failed to bring on record any such document i.e electricity bills, water bills, house receipts etc with respect to the suit property in his name or in name of defendant no.4 to 6 who are stated to be their tenant in suit shops. The PW-1 admitted that there are no dimensions of suit shops in site plan Ex.PW1/6. This fact also in violation of mandate o f law as stated in order 7 rule 3 CPC and this also deserves dismissal of plaint, as rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsels for defendant DDA. The demarcation report filed on record is no substitute of order 7 rule 3 as submitted by plaintiff counsel as the report pertains to only fact that suit shops falls in Khasra no.403/90/1. The said demarcation report which was objected by DDA has also not been proved by examining the persons who prepared the same.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 20 /54
18. In view of the above lacunae in the story of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have clearly failed to prove their settled legal possession on the suit land since 1950's as claimed by them in plaint and also mere entry in revenue records does not confer any title upon plaintiff w.r.t suit shops/land.
The above view of this court finds support from the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Nathu Ram vs D D A & Anr.decided on 1 February, 2022 as cited by ld.counsel of DDA. The facts of present case are very similar to the above case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and relevant paragraphs for consideration are reproduced herein below:
23. As for the other contentions made by the parties and evidence presented, this Court observes first, that the Plaintiffs have heavily relied upon their and their family members' names reflecting in certain revenue records such as Khasra girdawaris to establish that they have been in ownership and possession of the suit property. However, it is the settled position in law that reflection of a party's name in the revenue records cannot confer title. This was most recently upheld in Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag V. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Thr. Lrs. [Civil Appeal No 7017 of 2009, decided on 5th October, 2021], where the Supreme Court held:
"26. This Court in a judgment reported as Prahlad Pradhan and Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors.7 negated argument of ownership based upon entries in the revenue records. It was held that the revenue record does not confer title to the property nor do Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 21 /54 they have any presumptive value on the title. The Court held 7 (2019) 10 SCC 259 as under:
"5. The contention raised by the appellants is that since Mangal Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self-acquired property. The said contention is legally misconceived since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question. As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhar's name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property."
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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 22 /54 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 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.
In present case also, on almost similar facts, the plaintiff have failed to discharge the primary burden upon them and they deserve no relief from this court.
19. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the owner/Bhumidar of the suit land on the basis of document Ex.PW1/7 i.e judgment of Shri D.R. Nafri, Additional Collector Delhi dated 28.07.1988.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 23 /54 Perusal of said orders shows that father of plaintiffs was declared Bhumidar of land in question i.e Khasra no.403/90/1 only in the year 1988. To the understanding of this court the said judgment of the Additional Collector heavily relied upon by plaintiffs has no relevance as being non-est in view of document Ex.D3W1/6i.e notification dated 23.05.1963 of department of Delhi Administration in exercise of power conferred by 507(a) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 whereby the village, Azadpur and the other villages mentioned in the said notification ceased to be rural areas and thus the order of Revenue Courts dated 28.07.1988 has no force with respect to the land which does not fall under the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954. Section 154(3) of DLR Act 1954 clearly states that if Gaon Sabha cease to be rural area by virtue of notification under section 507 of DMC Act, all movable and immovable properties or interest held in Gaon Sabha will vest in Central Government. Thus, the revenue court which declared father of plaintiff as Bhumidar had no jurisdiction to decide the same on that date. And all the entries in revenue record in name of plaintiffs which were made as consequence to the order of revenue court dated 28.7.88 looses it's legal force.
The above view of this court, is also supported by three Judge by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of three Judges Benche in case of Mohinder Singh (D) Thr. Lrs . vs Narain Singh decided on 14 March, 2023 as cited by ld.counsel of DDA.
The relevant paras are quoted below:-
31. To simplify it further, once there is a notification issued by the competent authority in exercise of Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 24 /54 power under Section 507(a) which is a special provision in reference to rural areas, such of the rural areas cease to be included therein upon issuance of the notification and shall thereafter include in and form part of the urban areas in terms of the notification. Subclause (b) and (c ) of Section 507 deals with the nature of grant of exemption or levy of taxes for such of the areas falling within the scope and ambit of the Act, 1957.
36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act 1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply.
In sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954 become non est and loses its legal significance.
The above case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was also followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Rajeev Shah (Deceased) Through Lr Ms. ... vs Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.decided on 10 April, 2023 .The relevant paragraph is quoted below:-
25. Therefore, considering the law of the land as declared by Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra), the inevitable conclusion is that the proceedings pending before the learned ADM under the DLR Act after urbanisation of the area in question cannot continue. The Supreme Court has held clearly that all proceedings under the DLR Act lose their legal significance after urbanisation of the area in question. The Supreme Court has made no segregation as regards the proceedings under the DLR Act being at initial stages or where final order under the DLR has Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 25 /54 already come to be passed at the time of urbanisation of the land. Thus, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, all proceedings emanating from the DLR Act would be liable to be quashed after urbanisation, as the DLR Act ceases to apply.
The Supreme Court nowhere differentiates between the original proceedings or the Appellate proceedings that may be pending under the DLR Act before the Revenue Authorities at the time of declaration of an area as urbanised.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has reiteratated the above principles in the case of Smt. Indu Khurana vs Gram Sabha & Ors decided on 26.03.2010 and relied upon by the plaintiff counsel.
20. The case of Hatti vs Sunder Singh of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of two judges bench decided in 1970 and relied upon by the plaintiff has no relevance in the facts of the present case because the said judgment was delivered on the premise that the land in question was agricultural land and thus it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that Bhumidari rights with respect to agricultural land can not be decided by the revenue courts which has jurisdiction to decide and not civil courts. But in the present case in view of the notification dated 23.05.1963 whereby the village Azadpur ceased to be a rural area, the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has no applicability and to the mind of this court has been wrongly relied upon by the plaintiffs. This also takes away the significance of order of D.R Nafra Additional Collector decided Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 26 /54 on dated 28.07.1988 from where the whole claim of plaintiffs originates.
21. The plaintiffs story in the plaint is itself contradictory as on one side they are claiming to the Bhumidar of Khasra no.403/90/1 and on the other hand admittedly they have let out the suit property to various tenants used by them for non agricultural purpose. Various provisions contained in Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 which prohibits the Bhumidar to let out the Bhumidari land in favour of other persons and relevant provisions are reproduced herein below:
35. Letting of land- No Bhumidhar or Asami shall lt,for any p eriod whatsoeer, any land comprised in his holding except in the cases provided for in seciton 36.
Explanation Any arrangement whereby a person is entitled to v merely to share in the produce grown on the land in consideration person assisting or participating with the tenure holder in the actual performance of agriculture operations is not a "lease".
36. Lease by a disabled person (1) A Bhumidhar who is
(a) an unmarried woman, or if married, divorced or separated from he husband, or a widow;
(b) a minor whose father has died
(c) a lunatic or an idiots
(d) a person incapable of cultivating by reason of blindness or physics Infirmitys
(e) prosecuting studies in a recognized institution and does not exceed 25 years in age
(f) in the armed forces of the Indian union; 2) Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 27 /54
(g) dependent for assistance in agricultural operation on a person serving in the armed forces of the Union and certified by the Deputy Commissioner to be so dependent; or
(h) under detention or imprisonment, may/let the whole or any part of his holding
44. Effect of lease in contravention of section 36. When a Bhumidhar other than one referred to in section 36 has let out his holding or any part thereof, the lessee will, notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract or document of lease become and be deemed to be a purchaser and the provisions of section 33 and 42 shall mutatis mutandis apply.
45. Transfer made-in-contravention of this Chapter to be void.-(1) Any transfer made by or on behalf of a Bhumidhar or Asami in contravention of the provision of this Chapter shall be void.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to any transfer which has been exempted by the Chief Commissioner "[under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 33..
81. Ejectment for use of land in contravention of the provisions of this Act--(1) A Bhumidar or an Asami shall be liable to ejectment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha or the landholder as the case may be, for using land for horticulture animal husbandry, which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, and also Lto-render pay damages) equivalent to the cost of works which may be required to re the land capable of use for the said purposes.
22. Right of Bhumidhar or Asami to the exclusive possession of land in holding.- Bhumidhar or Asami shall, subject to the provisions of this Act. have the Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 28 /54 right to the exclusive possession of all land.comprised in his respective holding and to use land for any purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture wanimal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming make any improvement.
23. Use of holding for industrial purposes (1) A Bhumidhar or Asami shall not be entitled to use his holding or part thereof for industrial purposes, other than those immediately connected with any of the purposes referred to in section 22 unless the land lies within the belt declared for the purpose by the Chief Commissioner by a notification in the Official Gazette:
Provided that the Chief Commissioner may, on application presented to the Deputy Commissioner in the prescribed manner, sanction the use of any holding or part thereof by a Bhumidhar for industrial purpose even though it does not fie within such a belt.
(2) Where permission for industrial purposes is accorded, the provisions of this chapter relating to devolution shall cease to apply to the Bhumidar with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by the personal law to which he is subject;
3(13) "land" except in sections 23 and 24, means land held or occupied for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming and includes-
(a) buildings appurtenant thereto,
(b) village abadis,
(c) grovelands, Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 29 /54
(d) lands for village pasture or land covered by water and used for growing singharas and other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation, but does not include-land occupied by building in belts or areas adjacent to Delhi town, which the Chief Commissioner may be a notification in the Official Gazette declare as an acquisition thereto;
In view of the above discussed provisions the land in question i.e suit land ceased to be land within the meaning of DLR Act 1954 once it is transferred/used in violation of provision of DLR act 1954 and plaintiff who let out bhumidari land in violations of above provisions can not claim to be the Bhumidar of the same as he has failed to use the land in question meant for agricultural purpose only by sub letting the same to tenants. This view of the undersigned finds strength from the Judgment of Hon'ble Court of Delhi in N.B Singh (Huf) vs M/S Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd on 29 May, 2009 as cited by ld.counsel of DDA. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:
Before I proceed further, it needs to be noticed that this Court in the case of Ram Lubbaya Kapoor Versus J R Chawla and Others, 1986 RLR 432 has held that any land before it can be termed as "land" for the purpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 must be held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry etc. and if the land is not used for said purposes, it ceases to be land for the purpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It has been further held that a Bhumidhar is bound not only to retain possession of his land but also use it for specified purposes at Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 30 /54 all material times if he is to continue to be a Bhumidhar. A similar view was taken by this Court in Narain Singh and Another Versus Financial Commissioner in WP(C) No.670 of 1995 decided on July 14, 2008.
It is manifest from the above judgments of this Court that a property ceases to be an agricultural property if it is not used for agricultural purposes. In the present case, as noticed above, defendant in its written statement has admitted that the suit property is a farm-house which consists of a dwelling unit on its ground floor and first floor, a swimming pool and servant quarter etc. The defendant has further admitted that the suit property was leased out to it for the residence of its Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu. It is also admitted that the rental of the suit property at the time it was leased out to defendant was Rs.1,60,000/- per month and it is being continuously used by its Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu for his residence.
The aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the plaintiff got the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for raising construction on the so-called agricultural land, obtained completion certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is paying house-tax as assessed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi lead me to no other conclusion except to the conclusion that the suit property, by no stretch of imagination, can be called an agricultural land. The defendant-company who had taken premises on lease for the residence of its Managing Director on a hefty rent of Rs.1,60,000/- per month is estopped from contending that the suit property is an agricultural land covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Of-course, learned counsel for the defendant sought to place reliance on the revenue records to make good the submission that the plaintiff continues to be a Bhumidhar in such Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 31 /54 records but in the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, the description of the plaintiff as a Bhumidhar is of no consequence.
22. 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 32 /54 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. 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 33 /54 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 34 /54 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 35 /54 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 36 /54 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 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).
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 37 /54
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 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.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 38 /54
(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 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.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 39 /54 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.
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.
23. 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 40 /54 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 41 /54 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 42 /54 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 43 /54 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 44 /54 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.
24. 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 45 /54 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.
25. 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 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 46 /54 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. 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, Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 47 /54 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, the issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1,2 and 3.
26. 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 48 /54 including present plaintiffs. Thus, the said issue is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no.3/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 defendants.
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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 49 /54 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.
(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.
Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 50 /54
(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.
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 no.1,2 and 3 all 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 51 /54 same to be defective and plaintiffs can not clain 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 defendants and against the plaintiffs.
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 plaintiffs and against defendants.
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 defendants.
27. 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 52 /54 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 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.
28. The present case which is in view of above discussion is no doubt based on false claim and has wasted precious time of Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 53 /54 this court in this present frivilous litigation and thus, the cost of Rs.50,000/- 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
29. 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.
30. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
31. 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 Anil Kumar Jain & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. 54 /54