Delhi District Court
Sh. Radhey Shyam vs Delhi Development Aukthority on 31 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL,
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16
RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS.
CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004
1. Sh. Radhey Shyam,
S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand
R/o H. No. 54, Basant Village/Nagar,
New Delhi-110057.
2. Sh. Shyam Lal,
S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand
R/o H. No. 54, Basant Village/Nagar,
New Delhi-110057.
3. Sh. Laxmi Narain
S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand
R/o H. No. 54, Basant Village/Nagar,
New Delhi-110057.
......Plaintiffs.
Vs.
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice-Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Bishan Swaroop
S/o Late Sh. Bihari Lal
R/o H. No. 12-13, Basant Village/ Nagar,
New Delhi-110057.
3. Sh. Vinod
S/o Sh. Kishan Chand
R/o H. No. 12-13, Basant Village/ Nagar,
New Delhi-110057.
..... Defendants.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION ON BEHALF
_________________________________________________________________________
CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16
RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 1 of 20
CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004
OF PLAINTIFFS
Date of institution : 26.03.2004
Date of reserving order for judgment: 16.10.2023
Date of final order : 31.10.2023
Final Order : DISMISSED
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts
1. The factual matrix of the present case is that the plaintiffs are the permanent residents of Basant Village/ Nagar and having ancestral properties in Basant Village/ Nagar which includes H. No. 54 and a plot of 300 sq. yards approx. which falls in Shyamlat Deh of the village in between the power house and house no. 203, forming part of Khasra no. 33/1-9. That the said plot is not earmarked so far. That the name of the ancestors of Sh. Tara Chand and Sh. Lachoo Ram, the father and the uncle of the plaintiffs has been duly entered in the Jama Bandi of the said area for the year 1947-1948 and has remained till their death. That Sh. Tara Chand has expired in 1978 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. That Sh. Lachoo Ram expired unmarried. That after their death, the said land has been recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in the Jamabandi by mutation in 1996 and continued till date. That the plaintiffs are owner of residential house no. 54, Basant Village/ Nagar, New Delhi.
That the defendant no. 2 and 3 are legal heirs of Late Sh. Bihari Lal and Sh. Gokul Chand and are the residents of House No. 12 & 13, Basant Village/ Nagar, New Delhi. That Sh. Bihari Lal and Sh. Gokul Chand during their lifetime were having a Atta Chakki in the vicinity of the plot of the plaintiffs in the Shyamlat Deh since 1970.
_________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 2 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 The said Atta Chakki was not situated on the plot of the plaintiffs which was solely owned by the plaintiffs.
That the Government of India acquired some land in Khasra no. 33/10 but no land in Khasra no. 33/109 was acquired and the same remained under the ownership of the original owners including the plaintiffs. That the Atta Chakki of the defendants falls on the land which was acquired by the Government and utilized for the purpose of erecting a power house in the village.
That the defendants and their predecessor are persons of ill repute and have bad intentions and made several attempts to grab the property of the plaintiffs. On 26.11.1995, defendants came to dispossess the plaintiffs from the property of the plaintiffs and plaintiff made a call at 100 no. and by the interference of the police officers, the defendants failed to succeed in their illegal design.
That the plaintiff has given the notices and representations to various local authorities and even public notice in the newspaper but nobody has come to claim his right on the suit property. That the plaintiffs had lodged complaints against the defendants with various authorities on 01.12.1995 and 05.12.1995 and succeeded to protect the possession till date.
That plaintiff no. 2 has also filed the suit for permanent injunction and declaration against Sh. Gokul Chand, Sh. Gopi and Sh. Bishan Swaroop. That the defendants appeared in that suit and have taken a false and frivolous plea that M/s Bihari Lal Gokul Chand has been allotted 200 sq. yards of land by DDA against the demolition of their Atta Chakki in the year 1987 vide allotment letter no.
_________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 3 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 F22/40/78/CRC dated 02.04.1987 and they have been handed over the possession of the said plot ad-measuring 200 sq. yards on 15.05.1987. That the said documents are forged and fabricated and have been created in collusion with DDA. That defendant no. 2 is employed with DDA and he has manipulated the documents in collusion with the officials of DDA to create false and frivolous title upon the said land. That in the said allotment letter or possession letter, the details of property or Khasra no. is not mentioned. That the said documents have no relation to the land of the plaintiffs which is a private land which could not have been allotted by the DDA and DDA have no right over the suit property.
That the plaintiffs immediately made complaint dated 18.12.1995 to defendant no. 1 and to SHO, Basant Village/ Nagar dated 27.03.1996 against the forged documents. No action has been taken by defendant no. 1 and police officials on the complaints filed by the plaintiff.
That the plaintiffs served a legal notice dated 29.10.1998 upon the defendant no. 1 relating to said facts. The plaintiffs also made written representation to defendant no. 1 dated 09.10.2003 but of no effect. That the plaintiffs vide letter dated 16.02.1996 requested the Deputy assessor & Collector, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi-16 that no plot no. may be given for the land of the plaintiffs to any person. That defendant no.2 time to time tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property. That plaintiffs made police complaint dated 17.10.2003 to SHO PS Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and a case under section 107/150 has been registered against the parties. That on 03.01.1999, the defendants tried to install a gate in the suit property which was strongly objected and again a case under Section 107/151 _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 4 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 was registered against the parties.
That defendant no. 3 has filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant no. 1 without impleading the plaintiff as parties in the same and without mentioning the earlier suit. In that suit, the defendant no. 3 alleged that the said property bears the municipal no. 1-C, Basant Village. The defendant no. 2 filed a written statement in that suit admitting that the allotment was wrongly made in favour of the defendants.
That all the documents of allotment, possession are of the year 1987 and have been addressed to M/s Bihari Lal Gokul Chand. However, Sh. Bihari Lal had expired in the year 1978 much before the issuance of said letters, then how the allotment has been done in favour of dead person. That till date no registered document has been executed in the favour of defendant no. 2 & 3 by the defendant no. 1 including the lease deed. That the defendant no. 2 & 3 are not in the possession of the suit property and do not have any documents to show their possession.
That the plaintiffs also have certificate from Basant Gram Residence Welfare Association (Regd.) dated 03.11.1995 which has certified that the suit property is a residential plot of Late Sh. Tara Chand and Sh. Lachoo Ram which is situated in front of House no. 203 (Pratap) and near the power house which was covered by iron wire by their legal heirs i.e. the plaintiffs. That the defendants also filed a forged and fabricated document in the court by the same Association dated 17.02.1996 on 18.02.1996.
Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 5 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 seeking relief of declaration to declare the allotments letter dated 02.04.1987, letter of handing over the possession dated 15.05.1987 and the letter of No Objection Cerificate dated 12.06.1987 all issued by defendant no. 1 in favour of M/s Bihari Lal Gokul Chand predecessors of defendant no. 2 & 3 as null and void, non-est, having no legal effect pertaining to the suit property and decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant no 2 & 3 from creating third party interest in the suit property.
2. Summons of settlement of issues were issued to the defendants and they filed their written statements.
3. In the Written Statement, the defendant no. 1 denied all the averments made by the plaintiffs and had taken certain preliminary objections. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and injunction but no notices u/s 53B of the DDA,1957 has been served and suit is liable to be dismissed. That the plaintiff is not in the possession of the suit property and therefore, a mere suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable. That the suit has not been properly valued by the plaintiffs for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. On merits, it is averred by defendant no. 1 that the land which has been referred by plaintiffs form part of Khasra no. 133/27 min & 13/3/6 min of Village Vasant Nagar. That the said land has already stands acquired vide Award no. 1879 and the possession has already been taken over by the Government and has been placed at the disposal of defendant no. 1. That the plaintiffs are neither in occupation nor have any concern with the land under reference. That the plaintiffs tried to encroach upon the Government land but they could not succeed.
4. In the Written Statement, the defendant no. 2 & 3 denied _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 6 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 all the averments made by the plaintiffs and had taken certain preliminary objections. That the present suit of the plaintiffs is without any cause of action and the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from this court. That the plaintiffs are neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. That the suit property in the case filed by the defendant no. 3 is different from the suit property of the present case. That the plaintiffs are claiming the suit property falling under Khasra No. 33/1-9 and the suit property of the defendant no. 2 & 3 falls in Khasra no. 133/27. That the present suit is not maintainable under Order II Rule 2 CPC and liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC as the suit pertaining to same property is already pending titled as Shyam Lal & Ors Vs. Gokul Chand & Ors. That the defendant no. 2 & 3 became the owners of the property on the basis of letter dated 02.04.1987 and no injunction cannot be passed against the owner of the suit property. That the defendant no. 2 & 3 had paid consideration to the defendant no. 1 and after receiving consideration, defendant no. 1 duly issued letter dated 15.05.1987 and handed over the possession of the same. That the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred even as per the averments of the plaint. That the defendant no. 2 & 3 are the resident of House No. 12, Village Basant and also 1-C, Basant Village, as the same was allotted and handed over by the DDA in the year of 1987. That on one hand, the plaintiffs are claiming to be the owner of the property and on the other hand gave public notice in the local newspaper and invited claim by any person in respect of the so called plot of the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs are not in the possession of any part of the premises or so called plot.
That in lieu of the structure of the defendant no. 2 & 3 demolished during the period of emergency in the year 1975-76, the DDA on 02.04.1987 allotted a piece of land measuring 200 sq. yards _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 7 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 bearing Municipal No. 1-C, Village Basant, New Delhi. That the DDA directed to deposit the cost of the land @ Rs. 13/- per sq. yards and after complying the said order on 04.04.1987 by depositing Rs. 2,600/-, the said plot was allotted to the defendant no. 2 & 3. That the plaintiffs have not filed a single document of their ownership. That the plaintiffs are habitual litigants and have filed frivolous suits against various persons.
That the plaintiffs have himself mentioned in the plaint that they had gathered the knowledge in the year 1996 and seeking the relief of declaration by way of present suit in the year 2004, which is barred by Limitation Act,1963.
5. Thereafter, plaintiffs have filed replication to the WS of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 & 3 denying all the averments made in the WS and re-affirming the contents of the plaint.
6. On the basis of pleading, the following issues were framed by the court vide order dated 27.03.2017:-
1. Whether the allotment letter dt. 02.04.1987, letter of delivery of possession dt. 15.05.1987, NOC dt. 12.06.1987, Registered lease deed no. 3028 executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of predecessor of defendant no. 2 to 3 and other LRs regarding the suit property are liable to be declared as null and void as averred by the plaintiffs? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration and injunction as prayed for? OPP.
_________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 8 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.
4. Whether the suit in hand is not maintainable in its present form?OPD
5. Relief.
7. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 as PW1 who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/X. In his examination in chief, PW1 mostly reiterated the averments as made in the plaint and relied upon and produced the following documents on record:-
1. Police Complaint Dt 27.03.1996 which is Ex.PW1/1A.
2. Legal Notice dt. 29.10.1998 to defendant no. 1 which is Ex. PW1/1B (colly).
3. Receiving copy of letter dt. 16.02.1996 which is Ex. PW1/1C.
4. Letter to Deputy Assessor & Collector (10 pages) which is Ex. PW1/1D (colly).
5. Copy of police complaint dt. 15.09.1994 which is Mark A. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 9 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 Defendant no.1/DDA. He deposed that he had served notice to DDA prior to filing of the present case. He further deposed that his father is having 1/12 share in Khasra no. 33/1-9 i.e. 300 sq. yards. He further deposed that as on today, the disputed land is in possession of DDA since 25.10.2004 and boundary was constructed by DDA. He further deposed that on the three sides of the disputed land there is rasta/ road and on one side there is boundary of Power House. He further deposed that he did not know the Khasra no. of Power House. He further deposed that they have paid the house tax of the disputed land but did not file any record regarding payment of House tax. He further deposed that it is correct that after making complaint to the police, police authority has not given possession back to me of the disputed land. He further deposed that he came to know about the lease of the plot measuring 200 sq. yards of the disputed land executed by the DDA in the year 2009.
7.1 The plaintiffs also examined Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Patwari, SDM Office, Vasant Village, Palika Bhawan, R. K. Puram, Delhi, as PW2 who had brought the summoned record i.e. Aks Sizra and Khasra Girdawari in respect of Khasra no. 33/1-9 and it measures 16 Bigha and 10 Biswa which is in respect of 2007 to 2011. The copy of Khasra Girdawari is Ex. PW2/1 (OSR). He has also brought the original Jamabandi for the year 1947-48 which is in Urdu language.
The copy of same is Ex. PW2/2(OSR). He has also brought the Intekal Register/ Mutation Register with respect to Late Sh. Tara Chand and his LRs. The copy of same is Ex. PW2/3. The said document is objected by Ld. Counsel for the defendants on the ground that part of original is pasted on fresh paper and original was in Urdu and rest of the paper is in Hindi. He has also brought the register of Khasra Girdavari for the year 1955-96 in respect of Shyamlat Deh Khasra No. _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 10 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 33/10 and 33/1-9 in respect of Basant Nagar, New Delhi. The copy of same is Ex. PW2/4(OSR). He has also brought the original demarcation report in respect of Khasra no. 32 and 33 dt. 05.04.2005. The copy of same is Ex. PW2/5(OSR). He has also brought the Original Jamabandi for the year 1947-48 which is in Urdu language. The copy of same is Ex. PW2/2(OSR).
PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1/DDA. He deposed that he had not visited the suit land. He further deposed that he had never inspected the Khasra no. around the disputed land physically. He further deposed that Shyamlat Deh means Land of group of people and ownership belongs to the person sitting in the land of Shyamlat Deh. He further deposed that as per record, Khasra no. 133/27 and 133/27 min belong to Government.
Thereafter, PE is closed.
8. Thereafter, the defendant no.1/DDA has examined Sh.Harsh Vardhan Sharma, Naib Tehsildar, DDA as DW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex DW1/A and relied upon and produced the following documents:-
1. Photocopy of award no. 1879 which is Ex. DW1/1.
2. Photocopy of possession proceedings which is Ex.DW1/2.
3. Photocopy of notification dated 03.01.1968 which is Ex. DW1/3.
_________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 11 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004
4. Copy of aks sijra of village Basant Nagar showing the Khasra no. 133/27 which is Ex. DW1/4.
DW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs. He deposed that it is correct that Khasra no. 33/1-9 is unacquired land and DDA has no concern with the same. He further deposed that he cannot say whether the Khasra no. 33/1-9 falls in between house no. 203 and power house. He further deposed that the suit land is adjacent to the power house and is acquired land. He further deposed that he cannot tell the Khasra no. of the power house. He further deposed that possession of 100 sq. yards was taken over vide possession proceedings Ex. DW1/2. He further deposed that the suit land falls in Khasra no. 133/27 min Village Basant Nagar.
Thereafter, DE stands closed.
9. Thereafter, Defendant no. 2 and 3 are proceeded ex-parte due to non-appearance vide order dated 11.07.2018
10. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 and have carefully gone through the case file and written submissions filed by the parties.
11. Issuewise findings as follows:-
Issue no. 1 All the issues are interconnected and can be decided together. Therefore, all the issues have been taken together.
In order to prove their case, plaintiffs have relied upon _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 12 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 certain documents which have been exhibited by the plaintiff no.1 during his examination in the present case as well as connected case. The plaintiffs have averred that they have ancestral properties in the Village Basant, Delhi which includes House no. 54 and a plot of 300 sq. yards in Khasra No. 33/1-9. The Jamabandi and Khasra girdawari placed on record by the plaintiffs in the connected suit which is Ex. PW1/6 (colly) shows the name of the plaintiff's ancestors. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for the land admeasuring 300 sq.yards which forms part of Shyamlat Deh. It has been further averred by the plaintiffs that the land of Khasra no. 133/27 was acquired by the Government vide Award no. 1879. That the land measuring 200 sq. yards out of the suit property of 300 sq. yards have been allotted to the defendant no. 2 & 3 by DDA in the year 1987 despite the fact that the suit property was never acquired by the Government or DDA, therefore, the allotment as well as other documents are bad in law.
It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that defendant no.1/DDA admitted in the written statement that since 19.06.1971, the Government land falls in Khasra no. 133/27 is with Horticulture Department of DDA. That under RTI Enquiry, the Horticulture Department on 02.05.2011 which is Ex. PW1/38 in connected case, stated that the land in between House no. 203 and power house admeasuring 320 sq. yards never remain with them in which suit property is situated. That the letter issued by the Residence Welfare Association dated 03.11.1995 confirms the ownership right of the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs also paying the House Tax to MCD as owner of the suit property. That the defendant no. 2 & 3 initially claims their right over the suit property on the basis of letter issued by DDA dated 02.04.1987, 15.05.1987 and 12.06.1987 vide file no. F-
_________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 13 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 22(40) 78/CRC and all these documents are forged and fabricated. That in RTI dated 13.07.2009 DDA confirmed that no record of demolition slip is available and they also not only confirm that no documents issued by DDA without dispatch number but also replied that file no. F-22(40) 78/CRC is not available with the DDA. That the defendants in connivance with each other also got registered the Lease Deed in 2009 on the basis of site plan prepared by JE on 24.11.2008 whereas as alleged the allotment was made to defendants way back in 1987. Hence, JE alone cannot prepare the site plan and handing over the possession documents. That the defendant no. 2 & 3 alleged that the suit property is allotted to them in lieu of demolition of Atta Chakki and it is settled law that DDA/defendant cannot allot any alternate plot either commercial or in any manner residential plot to anybody in lieu of commercial property demolition. That the land under Khasra no. 133/27 which is 1 bigha 14 biswa was handed over to the Horticulture Department of DDA on 19.06.1971 and after developing Park, the Horticulture Department transferred the said land to MCD. Hence, the allotment of 200 sq. yards land to the defendant from this Khasra does not arise. That the DDA has taken forcible physical possession of 120 sq. yards from plaintiff on the pretext that the same is earmarked for parking purpose and DDA has confirmed that no parking has been developed by the DDA in Basant Nagar Ex. PW1/34 & 35.
In the connected suit, the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration of ownership of the suit property. The location of the suit property is itself in dispute whether it falls in Khasra no. 33/1-9 or 133/27. The plaintiffs have stated the suit property to be measuring 300 sq. yards but no dimensions have been stated by the plaintiffs anywhere during the whole trial. PW1 during his cross-examination _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 14 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 also deposed that he did not remember the dimensions of the suit property. That the plaintiff has not placed on record any single documents regarding the ownership of the suit property except the revenue record i.e. Ex. PW1/6 (colly) in the connected case. Moreover, PW1 during his cross-examination duly admitted that except Ex. PW1/6, no other record is in existence in their favour in respect of Khasra no. 33/1-9 and Ex. PW1/6 are only revenue record i.e. Jamabandi and Khasra Girdavari. He also admitted during his cross- examination that no transfer document ever executed in his favour or in favour of his father by the LRs of Sh. Sheolal or no NOC was ever issued by other LRs in their favour.
In Union of India & Ors Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd & Ors (2014) 2 SCC 269, wherein it is held that:-
"17. This court in several judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. M. Papaiah and Another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that " it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand and Others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this court has held that " That the entries in jamabandi are not the proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Keshav Ram and Others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this court held that " the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff".
In Khasra no. 33/1-9 there are total 9 khasras and the plaintiff was not aware of the exact khasra no. where the suit property situates as the same is deposed by PW1 during his cross-examination _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 15 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 that he did not know the specific Khasra no. out of Khasra no. 33/1-9 wherein his property is situated and he did not know the specific area of Khasra no. 33/1 to 33/9. Even, PW3 i.e Patwari fails to tell the Khasra no. in which the suit property falls. PW1 during his cross- examination also admitted that he has never got the suit land demarcated from the revenue authority.
PW2 specifically deposed that the suit property falls in Shyamlat Deh i.e. the land which belongs to the group of people. In Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396, wherein it is held that:-
"2. Since time immemorial there have been common lands inheriting in the village communities in India, variously called Gram Sabha Land, Gram Panchayat Land (in many North Indian States), shamlat deh (in Punjab etc.) , Mandaveli and Poramboke Land (in South India), Kalam, Maidan etc. depending on the nature of user. These public utility lands in the villages were for centuries used for the common benefit of the villagers of the village such as ponds for various purposes eg. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing their harvested grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, Ramlila, cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyards etc. These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which handed over their management to gram sabhas/ gram panchayats. They were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land be preserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the gram sabha/ gram panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourers and members of the scheduled castes/ tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases. This court in several judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In corporation of the City _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 16 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 of Bangalore Vs. M. Papaiah and Another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that " it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand and Others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this court has held that " That the entries in jamabandi are not the proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Keshav Ram and Others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this court held that " the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis of declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff".
The principle of law is that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and has to prove his own case. In Union of India & Ors Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd & Ors (2014) 2 SCC 269, wherein it is held that:-
"14. At the outset, let us examine the legal position with regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration of title and possession. This court in Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira reported in AIR 1959 SC 31 observed that " In a suit for declaration if the plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own title." In Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426, this court held that " the onus to prove title to the property in question was on the plaintiff. In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on the part of the court of appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf of the plaintiff. The court is bound to enquire or investigate that question first before going into any other question that may arise in a suit."
The plaintiffs themselves averred in their plaint that they had given notices and representations to various authorities and even public notice in the local newspaper but nobody has come to claim his _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 17 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 right on the property in question. The newspaper "The Statesman"
dated 17.11.1995 is Ex. PW1/2 in the connected case. This public notice shows that the plaintiffs themselves have doubt about their ownership over the suit property otherwise no man of general prudence would have issued such public notice. This also creates doubt over the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Moreover, none of the official witness examined by the plaintiffs in the present case or the connected case deposed that the suit land falls in Khasra no. 33/1-9.
In Somi Atamananda Vs. Sri Ram Kumar Tapobana 2005 10 SCC 51, wherein it is held that:-
"The expression "cause of action" has been defined to mean every fact, which, if traversed it would be necessary for plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court, though it does not compromise every piece of evidence which is necessary to be proved. Everything which if it is not proved, would give the defendant the right to an immediate judgment, must be the part of cause of action. In other words it means a bundle of material facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed. The cause of action has no relation to the defence which may be taken up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth part in the plaint as a cause of action, or in other words to media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour."
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration on 26.03.2004 seeking declaration of documents of the year 1987 as null and void, non-est and having no legal effect. Ex. PW1/1B(colly) dated 29.10.1998 is the Notice to The Deputy Director, DDA in reference to _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 18 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 the infringement of right of allotment of land mentioning the details of these documents of the year 1987 of which the plaintiffs are seeking declaration as null and void. This shows that the plaintiffs have knowledge of these documents atleast on 29.10.1998.
Article 56 of The Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides the period of limitation of three years for filing the suit seeking the relief of declaration pertaining to the documents from the date when the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff.
The present suit has been filed even after the expiry of 3 years from 29.10.1998. Therefore, the present suit is barred by limitation and hence, not maintainable in the present form.
In view of above facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership over the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiffs have failed to prove any cause of action and locus standi to file the present case. Since, plaintiffs failed to prove that they are owners of the suit property, they are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 2 & 3 from creating third party interest in the suit property.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 to 4 are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Relief.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed.
11. Parties to bear their own costs.
_________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 19 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004 File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court on this 31th day of October 2023. Digitally signed This Order contains 20 pages MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL and signed by me. GOEL Date: 2023.10.31 16:25:17 +0530 (MAYANK GOEL) ACJ/CCJ/ARC (WEST) TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI _________________________________________________________________________ CS SCJ 388/2014 8066/16 RADHEY SHYAM & ORS. Vs. DDA & ORS. Page No. 20 of 20 CNR No. DLWT03-000065-2004