Delhi District Court
Naresh Kumar Since Deceased vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 October, 2025
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS)
SUIT No.606938/2016
CNR No. DLWT03-000014-2004
In The Matter Between:
Sh. Naresh Kumar (since deceased)
(A) Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal (Deceased)
(1) Sushma Mittal
W/o Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal
(2) Sh. Vineet Mittal
(3) Sh. Vikas Mittal
Both sons of Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal
D-209, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, Delhi.
(B) Smt. Meena
W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o 119, Tagore Park, Delhi.
(C) Ms. Bhavna Gupta
W/o Sh. Anil Gupta
R/o 18/17, Block-18, Shakti Nagar,Delhi-110007.
........................PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
.....................DEFENDANT
Lalit Lalit
Date:
Kumar
Kumar 2025.10.27
16:56:11
+0530
Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-1/41
- 2 -
Suit instituted on :- 15.01.2004
Judgment Reserved on :- 26.07.2025
Date of decision :- 23.08.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
(Corrected upon an application of plaintiff filed U/s 152, CPC) By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant seeking permanent injunction. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is vital to first concisely state the pleadings in the present suit, which are as follows:
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
1. That one Ms. Shakuntala Devi, who was the real sister of the plaintiff, being the Member of, was allotted a plot by the DMC Staff Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Society'). This plot was bearing No.46, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Rajpur Chaowni, known as Ishwar Colony, Brahm Sabha Road, Delhi, measuring 206.7 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). The Perpetual Lease Deed was executed in her favour on 17.01.1977 (hereinafter 'sub lease deed'). She was the registered owner of the property with all rights. She constructed the property and she was the owner in possession of the said property.
2. That Ms. Shakuntala Devi, during her lifetime, nominated the Digitally plaintiff (real brother) as her nominee in respect of the suit signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:56:19 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-2/41
- 3 -
property. After the death of Ms. Shakuntala Devi on 02.05.1989, the plaintiff received a letter dated 06.02.1998 from the Society informing him that the deceased, Ms. Shakuntala Devi, nominated him as her nominee in regard to the suit property and in case he is interested in getting his name recorded in her place, the plaintiff may apply for the same with the Society.
3. The plaintiff complied, paid the ground rent, and his name was substituted in the Society's records as the owner.
4. Further, the plaintiff applied for mutation of the suit property in his name. In the record of the defendant/Delhi Development Authority ('DDA' in short), in terms of letter No. F.23 (46)/78/DMC/Flat/CS/DDA/4712 dated 09.12.2002, the plaintiff was recorded as the registered owner of the suit property.
5. That, as a result, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property after 1990 onwards and the plaintiff has also averred that he was in possession of the property.
6. That the name of the plaintiff was mutated by the defendant in their record as per the nomination of Ms. Shakuntala Devi and also being her legal heir. Thus, the plaintiff became the recorded owner of the suit property in the records of the Society as well as in the record of the defendant/DDA.
7. That at the time when the suit property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff submitted indemnity bond, affidavit, death certificate of Ms. Shakuntala Devi, receipt of amount Digitally deposited with the defendant and the said documents were signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:56:26 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-3/41 +0530
- 4 -
acknowledged to have been received by the defendant vide receipt bearing No. REC/LD/2/27489 dated 23.10.2002.
8. That after the suit property was mutated, no fresh Sub Lease Deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff and only the name of the plaintiff was substituted in the record of the Defendant/DDA and the Society.
9. The defendant issued a show cause notice dated 22.10.2003 to which a reply was filed by the plaintiff on 31.10.2003. Another show cause notice dated 10.12.2003 was received from the defendant to which a reply was filed by the plaintiff on 16.12.2003.
10. The show cause notice dated 22.10.2003 was issued by the Defendant/DDA seeking explanation from the plaintiff as to why the plaintiff had concealed the fact of pending court cases.
It was alleged in this show cause notice that the plaintiff had obtained the mutation by suppression and concealment of fact as it was noticed that various court cases were pending in respect of the suit property prior to the application of mutation but the plaintiff had not intimated the defendant. Thus, owing to a breach of Clause III and IV(b) of the sub-lease deed, a right accrued to the Lessor (Defendant-DDA) to determine the sub- lease deed and take back the possession of the plot under clause III of the sub-lease deed.
11. The reply of the plaintiff dated 31.10.2003 was found Digitally unsatisfactory by the Defendant/DDA. Therefore, a second show signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:56:31 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-4/41
- 5 -
cause notice dated 10.12.2003 was issued calling upon the plaintiff to explain the reason for concealing the fact of pending various court cases. This show cause notice also stated that " if no satisfactory reply is received within 15 days, further action to cancel the mutation as well as to determine the sub-lease deed will be taken and possession of the property will be taken back".
12. A reply dated 16.12.2003 was sent by the plaintiff and, fearing the cancellation of mutation, determination of sub-lease and the defendant taking possession of the suit property, the present suit was filed on 15.01.2004.
13. In essence, the case of the plaintiff against the show cause notices and anticipated cancellation of mutation is as follows:
13.1. Firstly, the Clauses III and IV(b) of the sub lease pertain to obtaining the sub-lease and not with the substitution of the name. Plaintiff submitted that at the time when the Sub Lease Deed was executed in favour of Ms. Shakuntala Devi, there was no allegation that any fact was suppressed or any misstatement or misrepresentation or fraud was played; that the sub-lease executed on 17.01.1977 remained unchanged till the name of the plaintiff was substituted in the record after the death of Ms. Shakuntala Devi; that No fresh sub-lease was obtained by the plaintiff. Therefore, the question of obtaining the sub lease on the basis of suppression of fact, misrepresentation, misstatement or fraud does not arise.
Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Date:
Thus, the issuance of the show cause notices alleging Kumar 2025.10.27 16:56:36 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-5/41
- 6 -
violation of Clause III and IV (b) is invalid. The show cause notices issued are illegal, arbitrary and against the terms of sub-lease.
13.2. Secondly, the plaintiff furnished all the required information and for the purpose of mutation; the furnished information was accepted by the defendant and mutation was made in favour of the plaintiff. When the substitution was made, there was no column or the requirement to communicate regarding any pending litigation. The mutation form or application did not require communication of pending litigation as a pre-condition to mutate the property. Since it was not the requirement nor there was any column, no information with regard to the litigation was conveyed by the plaintiff. The show cause notices do not allege that any fact required under the rules or guidelines has not been supplied to the defendant.
Therefore, it is the plaintiff's case that the defendant cannot claim that there was any misrepresentation or any misstatement by the plaintiff.
13.3. Thirdly, as per the letter dated 27.10.2003 of the defendant/DDA, the said information was already available with the defendant. Further, since the defendant was already aware about the pending court cases, non- communication of the information, which was not sought, cannot be a ground to cancel the mutation and to issue Digitally signed by Lalit show cause notice to the plaintiff. Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:56:41 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-6/41
- 7 -
13.4. Lastly, plaintiff submitted that the alleged "various court cases" were thrust on the plaintiff by impostors on the basis of forged documents.
14. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, its officials, agents, employees, etc. from cancelling the mutation in favour of the plaintiff and also determining the Sub Lease Deed in respect of the suit property.
15. The plaint was amended in the year 2024 to introduce facts pertaining to the death of the original plaintiff, Sh. Naresh Kumar; subsequent devolution of the suit property on the legal heirs of the plaintiff; and further transactions related to the suit property. The entire chain of devolution and subsequent transactions is not reproduced here for the sake of brevity since it does not affect either the original cause of action or relief claimed by the original plaintiff. It is clear that the right to sue continued in favour of the legal representatives/heirs since the suit property devolved on them and all the subsequent transactions also would be directly affected by the mutation done in favour of the original plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that the chain of transactions ended with one Ms. Bhawna Gupta, purchasing the suit property from one Sh. Gulshan Kumar through a registered deed of sale dated 04.09.2020, executed in her favour in compliance of judgment and decree of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.03.2020 passed in a suit Digitally of specific performance bearing number CS (OS) No. 293/2018.
signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:56:47 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-7/41
- 8 -
It was stated that Ms. Bhawna Gupta is in physical possession of the suit property being the absolute owner of the same. The amended plaint also added Ms. Bhawna Gupta as one of the plaintiffs, apart from adding the Legal Representatives (LRs) of the deceased original plaintiff.
16. The amended plaint supplemented the case of the plaintiff mentioned in paragraph 13.4 above against the issuance of show cause notices by the defendant/DDA. It was added in the amended plaint that:
16.1. "The entire action of the DDA of issuance of show cause notice is bad and illegal for the following reasons: -
(i) The show cause notice issued by the DDA is on the basis of a complaint dated 14.10.2003 received from one non-existing person Sh. Charanjeet Singh.
(ii) The show cause notice was issued totally relying upon the complaint of Sh. Charanjeet Singh and without independently verifying the facts.
(iii) That it has become clear from the chargesheet dated 02.05.2008 filed by the police authorities in FIR No. 14/2005 PS Model Town that there is no person with the name of Charanjeet Singh and that it is one Mr. M. S. Saini, Advocate who had initiated various false litigations in the name of non-existing persons.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:56:54 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-8/41
- 9 -
(iv) The very basis of issuance of show cause notice is the falsity at the hands of Sh. M. S. Saini, Advocate.
For these reasons, the show cause notices are liable to be set aside by this and the Defendant DDA is liable to be restrained from acting on the basis of this false complaint".
16.2. Various judicial orders and facts presented to various courts were also introduced in the amended plaint. These judicial orders and facts were brought on record in judicial proceedings which were instituted after the filing of the present suit. Through these judicial orders, the plaintiff intends to show that various false cases were filed by Sh. Charanjeet Singh, which ended as being dismissed in default; and further, to establish the plaintiff's undefeated claim on the suit property against various claimants. All the judicial orders and facts are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity since these do not affect the original cause of action of the plaintiff. Relevant judicial orders and facts shall be discussed at relevant stages in this judgment.
DEFENDANT'S CASE:
17. The defendant/DDA filed its Written Statement ("WS" in short) and subsequently, an amended WS to counter the claims of Digitally signed by plaintiff. It was submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is not Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:56:58 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-9/41
- 10 -
maintainable for want of mandatory statutory notice under S.53- B, DD Act, 1957; and that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.
18. The defendant admitted that the sub-lease was executed in the name of Ms. Shakuntla Devi and after her death, the plaintiff furnished an affidavit along with other documents stating that the deceased Ms. Shakuntla Devi was unmarried and he was the only legal heir being brother of the deceased. Relying on the documents submitted, the property was mutated in favour of the plaintiff vide its letter dated 09.12.2002.
19. It was further submitted that the defendant received an application from one Sh. Charanjeet Singh s/o. Sh. Pannu Ram dated 14.10.2003 wherein it was stated that mutation was obtained by the plaintiff by concealing, misrepresentation and manipulating the facts. After receiving the complaint, a show cause notice dated 22.10.2003 was issued to the plaintiff. A reply dated 31.10.2003 was received from the plaintiff. This reply was considered but not found satisfactory. Thereafter, a final show cause notice dated 10.12.2003 was also issued to the plaintiff. It was also replied by the plaintiff but again the reply was not found satisfactory. Thus, the mutation of the plot was suspended by the defendant vide its letter dated 24.08.2004 till the final decision in Court cases. It was also submitted that Sh. Charanjeet Singh had intimated that possession of the suit property was given to him on 20.04.2002 in compliance with the Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:57:03 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-10/41
- 11 -
orders of the Hon'ble Court of Sh. B.S. Chumbak, Civil Judge, in Execution Case No.29/01.
20. That, to ascertain the factual possession at site, a program was fixed for joint inspection at site on 10.3.2004. The plaintiff was intimated for this joint inspection vide letter dated 23.02.2004 but in response, the defendant received a letter dated 05.03.2004 from him wherein the plaintiff submitted that due to date of hearing in the Court, he was not in a position to participate in the joint inspection and, therefore, requesting for fixation of other day for inspection. That thereafter, another date of inspection was fixed for 16.04.2004 and information about this was sent to the plaintiff vide letter dated 31.03.2004.
21. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff has concealed material facts while applying for mutation of the property and therefore, show cause notices were issued, reply thereof was found unsatisfactory. That, after receiving the complaint, rescrutiny of documents submitted for mutation and to ascertain the factual position at the site, inspection became necessary. Thus, joint inspections were fixed and finally, mutation of plot was suspended in view of condition of mutation letter and sub- lease deed. At present there is no title of plot in favour of anyone.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLICATION:
22. The original plaintiff filed a replication to counter certain Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
material facts mentioned by the defendant in its WS. It was 2025.10.27 16:57:08 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-11/41
- 12 -
submitted by the plaintiff that he was never informed by the defendant at any time that an application has been received by them from Shri Charanjit Singh, or that Charanjit Singh has made false allegations and misrepresentation and concealment or manipulation of facts; that the copy of the said application was not provided to the plaintiff; that even the show cause notices issued by the defendant did not mention the fact that a complaint was received from Charanjit Singh; that the said Charanjit Singh has not placed the correct facts; that Ms. Shakuntala, the sister of the plaintiff, never sold or parted with possession of the property; that Sh. Charanjit Singh in connivance with one Rajinder Kumar fabricated the documents and in collusion with him and others manipulated the record and the matter with regard to the same was subjudice before the court and has not become final.
23. It was further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant has not disclosed what concealment, misrepresentation or manipulation was made by the plaintiff. The mutation was already effected in the name of the plaintiff being the nominee and also being the legal heir of the deceased, Ms. Shakuntala. The subsequent correspondence was made by the defendant in connivance with said Charanjit Singh; that the plaintiff filed proper replies to the show cause notices issued by the defendant; that the possession was obtained by said Charanjit Singh unauthorisedly, illegally and by suppressing true facts from the plaintiff as well as from the court and the matter with regard to the possession is subjudice before the court; that the alleged Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:57:12 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-12/41
- 13 -
letters for joint inspection were issued by the defendant with malafide intention and collusion with Charanjit Singh as the defendant was aware that the plaintiff's court cases were fixed on those dates and the plaintiff would not be able to be present for the inspection.
ISSUES:
24. Based on the pleading of the plaintiff and defendant, sole issue was framed in the present suit vide order dated 08.03.2013 -
"Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?" and the onus of proof was placed on the plaintiff.
25. This sole issue can be further divided into two sub-issues, for the sake of clarity: -
i. Whether the defendant is liable to be restrained from cancelling mutation in the name of the plaintiff? Onus of proof on the Plaintiff.
ii. Whether the plaintiff had exercised any fraud/concealment/misrepresentation in his application for getting the property mutated in his name? Onus on proof on Defendant.
26. However, this Court shall deal with both the sub-issues together since they are connected. A decision on either sub-issue in favour of either party shall lead to an automatic decision on Digitally signed by Lalit another sub-issue, accordingly, i.e., if first sub-issue is decided Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
in favour of the plaintiff, then the second sub-issue shall be 2025.10.27 16:57:17 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-13/41
- 14 -
automatically decided against the defendant and if the first sub- issue is decided against the plaintiff, then the second sub-issue would automatically be decided in favour of the defendant.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF:
27. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined 13 Plaintiff Witnesses ("PW" in short):
27.1 PW-1 was Ms. Bhavana Gupta tendered her evidence on affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A) and deposed that she purchased the premises bearing Municipal No.46 Ishwar Colony, Delhi admeasuring 206.7 sq.yds. (suit property) from Sh. Gulshan Kumar by means of duly executed and registered deed of sale agreement dated 04.09.2020 registered vide registration No.7964, Book No.1, Vol.
No.9277, Pages 54 to 69 registered on 14.09.2020 by the concerned Sub-Registrar-VIA, Delhi. A copy of the said sale deed was exhibited as Ex. PWI/1(OSR). The various facts mentioned in the said sale deed were stated to be true and correct. She further deposed that she had gone through the original plaint filed by Sh. Naresh Kumar and also of the amended plaint dated 17.09.2024 filed under her signatures and that the amended plaint contained true facts.
27.2 PW-2 was Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, he tendered his evidence on affidavit (Ex.PW-2/A) and deposed that he Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar was a duly constituted attorney of Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:57:22 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-14/41
- 15 -
who was the previous owner of the property No.46, Ishwar Colony, Delhi, vide SPA dated 04.09.2020. A copy of the said SPA was exhibited as Ex. PW2/1(OSR). The said SPA was stated to be correct and not revoked till date. He further relied on the documents filed by the defendant. It was further deposed that the defendant DDA issued the show cause notices completely relying upon the alleged complaint of one non-existing person Sh. Charanjeet Singh; that no independent inquiry was ever made by the DDA before issuing the show cause notices; that the show cause notices were got issued by Sh. M. S. Saini, Advocate, who was attempting to grab the suit property in collusion and connivance with the then officials of the defendant/DDA; that it was for this reason alone that the defendant did not carry out any independent investigation before issuing show cause notices and blindly relied upon the alleged complaint filed in the name of a non-existing person Sh. Charanjeet Singh. He lastly deposed that the suit of the plaintiff was correct.
27.3 PW-1 and PW-2 were cross examined by the defendant.
27.4 PWs 3 to 13 were official witnesses who brought the summoned judicial records related to various cases.
PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-13 brought the judicial records related to various Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar cases filed regarding the suit property after the Kumar 2025.10.27 16:57:28 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-15/41
- 16 -
institution of the present case. These witnesses proved the certified copies of judicial orders and judgments placed on record by the plaintiff. The certified copies of respective judicial order/judgment were also exhibited.
27.5 PW-5 was brought the digital record from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in bail application no. 1550/2008 titled as M.S.Saini v State along with a certificate u/S. 65B, Indian Evidence Act. This witness also brought the digital record of CRP No. 215/2017 titled Vineet Mittal v. State.
27.6 PW-6 was also an official witness from the office of Sub-Registrar-VI-A, Pitam Pura, New Delhi who brought the original record of the deed of sale agreement dated 04.09.2020, which was exhibited as PW-1/1 by PW-1. This witness proved the copy of sale deed exhibited as PW-1/1.
27.7 PW-9 was also an official witness from the court of Ld. ACJM, North-West district, Rohini Courts, Delhi who brought the original file of FIR no. 14/2005 PS Model Town, U/s. 420, IPC titled as State v. Ved Prakash Saini. The certified copy of the original charge sheet was proved to be a true copy by this witness.
27.8 The cross examination of PW-3 to PW-13 was dispensed with as per the provisions of S. 144, Bharatiya Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023/ S.139, Indian Evidence Act, Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:57:34 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-16/41
- 17 -
since these witnesses were only summoned to produce the respective summoned judicial record.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT:
28. To prove its case, the defendant examined only one Defendant Witness ("DW" in short) as DW-1. DW-1 was Sh. Ankit, Assistant Director, DDA. He tendered his evidence on an affidavit (Ex.DW1/A) and reiterated the contents of the WS of the defendant. DW-1 exhibited following documents relied upon by the defendant:
Identification Mark Description of the Document Ex-DW-1/1 (OSR) Copy of sub-lease. Ex-DW-1/2 (OSR) Copy of application for mutation submitted by Sh. Naresh Kumar Ex-DW-1/3 (OSR) Copy of Society's letter dated 06.02.1990.
Ex-DW-1/4 (OSR) Copy of letter dated 09.12.2002. Ex-DW-1/5 (OSR) Copy of conversion application no.
056036.
Ex-DW-1/6 (OSR) Copy of complaint dated 13.10.2003.
Ex-DW-1/7 & Ex- Copies of show cause notices dated DW-1/8 (OSR) 11.10.2003 and 10.12.2003.
Ex-DW-1/9 & Ex- Copies of replies dated 03.11.2003 and
DW-1/10 (OSR) 19.12.2003.
Ex-DW-1/11 & Ex- Copies of Inspection Reports dated
DW-1/12 (OSR) 23.01.2004 and 16.06.2004.
Ex-DW-1/13 to Ex- Copies of letters dated 23.02.2004,
DW-1/15 (OSR) 31.03.2004 and 18.05.2004.
Ex-DW-1/16 to Ex- Copies of letters dated 05.03.2004,
Digitally
signed by
DW-1/18 (OSR) 07.04.2004 and 21.05.2004 written by
Lalit
Sh. Naresh Kumar to DDA.
Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27
16:57:39
+0530
Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-17/41
- 18 -
Ex-DW-1/19 (OSR) Copy of letter dated 02.07.2004.
Ex-DW-1/20 (Colly) Copy of letter dated 26.07.2004 (OSR) alongwith copy of suit titled as "Sh.
Charanjeet Singh Vs. MCD and Baldev Singh Narula and Court orders dated 29.03.2003.
Ex-DW-1/21 (OSR) Copy of letter dated 24.08.2004. Ex-DW-1/22 (OSR) Copy of conversion application no.
109836.
Ex-DW-1/23 (OSR) Copy of Court notice.
29. DW-1 duly cross examined by the learned counsel for plaintiff. During the cross-examination, DW-1 deposed that he joined the present branch in January, 2024; that he has not dealt with the file of the plaintiff personally. DW-1 admitted that after receiving the complaint Ex.DW-1/6 and before issuance of show cause notices, DDA did not carry out any investigation on its own and had issued the show cause notice on the basis of the complaint Ex.DW1/6. He denied that the defendant/DDA was in collusion with one Advocate Sh. Mahip Singh Saini and had falsely issued the show cause notices.
30. Written submissions were filed by both sides. Oral final arguments were also advanced by both sides.
31. Written submissions and final arguments have been considered. The record has been perused.
ANALYSIS:
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:57:44 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-18/41
- 19 -
32. The first sub-issue that needs to be decided is "whether the defendant is liable to be restrained from cancelling mutation in the name of the plaintiff?" Onus of proof on the Plaintiff. Relying on the evidence led by him and showing the deficiencies in the evidences led by the defendant, the Plaintiff has advanced following submissions in support of his case:
i. No fresh sub-lease was obtained by the plaintiff.
Only a mutation was obtained by him on the basis of heirship and nomination, after filing all the requisite documents. Therefore, the question of obtaining the sub lease on the basis of suppression of fact, misrepresentation, misstatement or fraud does not arise. Thus, the issuance of the show cause notices by the defendant alleging violation of Clauses III and IV (b) of the sub-lease deed is invalid.
ii. That the defendant has been unable to show which court cases were pending regarding the suit property, on whose basis show cause notices were issued to the plaintiff.
iii. That the sole basis for the defendant to issue show cause notices, suspend the mutation in favour of the plaintiff and further threaten to cancel the same was the complaint of one Mr. Charanjeet Singh, who turned out to be a fictitious person. And that the defendant did not independently verify the facts Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
before issuing the show cause notices. 2025.10.27 16:57:49 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-19/41
- 20 -
iv. That the mandatory requirement of statutory notice under S.53-B, DD Act, 1957 does not apply to the facts of plaintiff's case since the documentary evidence filed by the defendant shows that the defendant and the plaintiff had exchanged multiple communications before the plaintiff filed the present suit.
33. This court shall discuss each of these four grounds raised by the plaintiff in detail below.
34. Firstly, the plaintiff submits that no fresh sub-lease was obtained by him and only a mutation was obtained. The plaintiff has made this submission to counter the ground for issuance of show cause notices by the defendant. In its show cause notices dated 22.10.2003 (Ex. DW-1/7) and 10.12.2003 (Ex. DW-1/8), the defendant stated as follows:
"AND WHEREAS by virtue of clause III and IV
(b) of the said sub-lease deed the sub-lessee cannot obtain the sub-lease deed by suppression of any fact, mis-statement, mis-representation or fraud. It has been noticed that you have obtained the mutation of the above said plot by suppression and concealment of fact. It has been noticed that various court cases are pending in respect of the property under reference prior to the application of mutation but you have not intimated to this office." (emphasis supplied) For reference, the clauses III and IV of the sub-lease deed are reproduced here:
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:57:55 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-20/41
- 21 -
III. If the sum or sums payable towards the premium of the yearly rent hereby reserved or any part thereof shall at any time be in arrear and unpaid for one calendar month next after any of the days whereon the same shall have become due, whether the same shall have been demanded or not, or if it is discovered that this Sub-Lease has been obtained by suppression of any fact or by any mis-statement, mis-representation or fraud or if there shall have been, in the opinion of the Lessee or the Lessor, and the decision of the Lessor shall be final, any breach by the Sub- Lessee or by any person claiming through or under him of any of the covenants or conditions contained herein and in the Lease and on his part to be observed or performed, then and in any such case, it shall be lawful for the Lessor or the Lessee with the prior consent in writing of the Lessor, notwithstanding the waiver of any previous cause or right of re-entry upon the residential plot hereby sub-leased and the buildings thereon, to re- enter upon and take possession of the residential plot and the buildings and fixtures thereon, and thereupon this Sub-Lease and everything herein contained shall cease and determine in respect of the residential plot so re-entered upon, and the Sub-Lessee shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever nor to the return of any premium paid by him;
...
IV. No forfeiture or re-entry shall be effected until the Lessor or the Lessee has served on the Sub- Lessee a notice in writing.
(a) specifying the particular breach complained of, and
(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the Sub-Lessee to remedy the breach, Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:58:07 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-21/41
- 22 -
and the Sub-Lessee fails within such reasonable time as may be mentioned in the notice to remedy the breach if it is capable of remedy, and in the event of forfeiture or re-entry the Lessor in his discretion or the Lessee, with the prior consent in writing of the Lessor, may relieve against forfeiture on such terms and conditions as the Lessor thinks proper.
Nothing in this clause shall apply to forfeiture or re- entry.
(a) for breach of covenants and conditions relating to sub-division or amalgamation, erection and completion of building within the time provided and transfer of the residential plot as mentioned in Clause II, or
(b) in case this Sub-Lease has been obtained by suppression of any fact, mis-statement, mis-
representation or fraud. (emphasis supplied) Perusal of these clauses shows that they pertain to obtaining the sub-lease on the basis of suppression of fact, or by any misstatement, misrepresentation or fraud. The defendant has not shown that Clauses III and IV(b) apply to subsequent mutation also. Obtaining the original sub-lease was a single transaction which was governed by the conditions and covenants of the sub- lease. Nothing has been stated by the defendant about the violation of any condition by the original sub-lessee, Ms. Shakuntala Devi. Therefore, the transaction of obtaining the sub- lease was completed and finalised. The plaintiff had obtained the mutation upon the death of the sub-lessee on the basis of heirship and nomination. The defendant has not shown any other condition of the sub-lease which specifically applies in cases of Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:58:13 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-22/41
- 23 -
mutation in favour of the heirs. Thus, it is safe to assume that the transaction of obtaining mutation was entirely different from that of the original sub-lease and was covered by different rules and conditions. The original conditions for obtaining the sub-lease are not applicable, per se, to the process of mutation. The plaintiff had applied for mutation, filed requisite documents and obtained the mutation.
34.1. The actual applicable condition governing the process of obtaining mutation is mentioned in the letter dated 09.12.2002 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff, allowing the mutation of the suit property in his favour (Ex.
DW-1/4). It states that - " Please note that in case the documents submitted by the legal heirs of the deceased are found false, then it will be a case of mis-statement/fraud and concealment of facts and mutation so allowed will automatically be cancelled and the property shall vest with the Lessor. " (emphasis supplied) 34.2. The defendant has neither pleaded, nor proved that any of the documents submitted by the plaintiff were found to be false. The plaintiff had applied for the mutation on the basis of heirship (being brother of the sub-lessee, Ms. Shakuntala Devi) and nomination (by the sub-lessee in favour of plaintiff) in the records of the Society. Both of these claims of the plaintiff were accepted by the defendant and mutation was allowed in favour of the Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:58:17 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-23/41
- 24 -
plaintiff. Neither the fact of heirship, nor that of nomination in favour of the plaintiff has been disputed by the defendant in the present suit. Thus, in absence of the same, the defendant has not shown any case against the plaintiff for issuing the show cause notices alleging violation of clause III and IV(b) of the sub-lease deed. Once the condition for mutation has been separately set out in the letter issued by the defendant allowing mutation itself, the defendant cannot go back on the sub-lease deed to allege violation of the conditions of the sub-lease. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the defendant on clauses III and IV(b) of sub-lease deed to issue show cause notices to the plaintiff was misplaced. Show cause notices dated 22.10.2003 (Ex. DW-1/7) and 10.12.2003 (Ex. DW-1/8) are bad in law, to that extent.
34.3. In view of the abovementioned, the plaintiff has established the first ground of contention in his favour.
The show cause notices dated 22.10.2003 (Ex. DW-1/7) and 10.12.2003 (Ex. DW-1/8) are invalid since these notices neither set out correct conditions applicable to the plaintiff's case, nor provided factual basis justifying their issuance.
35. Secondly, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has been unable to show which court cases were pending regarding the suit property, on whose basis show cause notices were issued to the plaintiff. Perusal of the show cause notices Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:58:23 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-24/41
- 25 -
dated 22.10.2003 (Ex. DW-1/7) and 10.12.2003 (Ex. DW-1/8) shows that it merely states that :
"It has been noticed that you have obtained the mutation of the above said plot by suppression and concealment of fact. It has been noticed that various court cases are pending in respect of the property under reference prior to the application of mutation but you have not intimated to this office.
...
You are therefore asked to explain in writing within 30 days from the date of issue of the notice as to why you had concealed the fact of pending court cases. If no satisfactory reply is received within the time further action to cancel the mutation as well as to determine the sub-lease deed will be taken and possession of the property will be taken back." (emphasis supplied) 35.1. The show cause notices do not mention the details of alleged "various court cases" and only asks the plaintiff "why" he had concealed the fact of pending court cases. Even during the trial, the defendant has not shown which court cases were pending regarding the suit property when the first show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that a complaint was received from one Sh. Charanjeet Singh s/o Sh. Pannu Ram dated 13.10.2003 wherein it was stated that mutation was obtained by the plaintiff by concealing, misrepresentation and manipulating the facts; and few court cases were alleged to be pending against the plaintiff and regarding Lalit by Digitally signed Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:58:29 +0530 the suit property. This complaint is Ex. DW-1/6.
Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-25/41
- 26 -
35.2. The defendant neither provided the details of the pending cases in the show cause notices, nor supplied a copy of the complaint dated 13.10.2003 (Ex. DW-1/6) to the plaintiff. This prevented the plaintiff from effectively addressing the alleged pending court cases as well as the contents of the complaint filed against him. Thus, the show cause notices dated 22.10.2003 (Ex. DW-1/7) and 10.12.2003 (Ex. DW-1/8) were vague since they lacked sufficient factual details. Accordingly, the show cause notices are invalid on this ground as well.
35.3. In view of the above, the plaintiff has also established that the defendant could not show which court cases were pending, on whose basis the show cause notices were issued.
36. Thirdly, the plaintiff has contended that the sole basis for the defendant to issue show cause notices, suspend the mutation and further threaten to cancel the same was the complaint of one Mr. Charanjeet Singh, who turned out to be a fictitious person . Further, the defendant did not independently verify the facts before issuing the show cause notices. This is a two pronged submission - first, that Mr. Charanjeet Singh was a non-existing person and second, that the defendant/DDA did not do an independent inquiry before acting on the complaint of Mr. Charanjeet Singh.
36.1. In support of the first ground, the plaintiff has filed judicial orders, judgments, chargesheet, from several Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:58:34 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-26/41
- 27 -
judicial proceedings to prove that the person namely Mr. Charanjeet Singh never existed; that Mr. Charanjeet Singh was only a fictitious person created by one Advocate Mahip Singh Saini to grab the property of the plaintiff, among other properties. These various placed on record by the plaintiff side are as follows:
i. Order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 20.10.2009 in Bail application no. 1550/2008 titled M.S.Saini v. State and an affidavit filed by Sh.Joy N. Tirkey, Assistant Commissioner of Police in the same matter. The Hon'ble High Court, while denying bail to the petitioner M.S.Saini, observed in paragraph no. 5 that " the documents placed on record by the prosecution goes to show that the petitioner and his co-accused Ved Prakash Saini were directly involved in the fabrication of other documents in favour of non-existing persons, namely, Charanjit Singh and Rajinder Kumar which enabled them to benefit themselves for taking possession of the property of others including that of the complainant". Further, the affidavit filed by the ACP related to address verification of Mr. Charanjit Singh stated that the address of Charanjit Singh furnished by Sh. Mahip Singh Saini did not exist; that there is no person in the name of Charanjeet Singh Singh s/o Pannu Ram at H.No.287-A, Purdil Pur, Gorakhpur, U.P. for the last 20 years. The record of this order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar duly proved by PW-5 by placing on record a CD Kumar 2025.10.27 16:58:39 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-27/41
- 28 -
(Ex.PW-5/1) containing digital record of the bail application along with a certificate u/s. 65-B, Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW-5/2).
ii. Three orders dated 06.11.2009 of learned JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (North-West district), in three cases - first, bearing number S-152/08/06 titled Charanjeet Singh v. DDA; second, S-234/09 titled Charanjeet Singh v. MCD and others; and third, S-188/08/02 titled Charanjeet Singh v. MCD and Baldev Singh Narula, wherein the learned Presiding officer also relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in bail matter mentioned above as well as on the Affidavit filed therein to conclude that "I am of the opinion that suit has been instituted by a non-existing person and therefore, is dismissed." Copies of these orders as well as the plaints filed were proved by PW-13. Copies of plaints were exhibited as Ex.PW-13/3, Ex.PW-13/5 and Ex.PW-13/7 and copies of the orders dated 06.11.2009 were exhibited as Ex.PW-13/4, Ex.PW-13/6 and Ex.PW-13/8, respectively.
iii. Order dated 22.02.2010 of the learned SCJ-cum-RC, West in Suit No.-M-23/2004, which was a miscellaneous application filed under O.IX Rule 13, CPC seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree dated 29.03.2003. This ex-parte decree was obtained by the Digitally signed by non-applicant/DH/plaintiff, Charanjeet Singh. Here also, Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:58:43 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-28/41
- 29 -
the learned Presiding Officer relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in bail matter mentioned above as well as on the Affidavit and statements of independent witnesses filed therein to conclude that "i am of the opinion that the ex-parte decree in the matter was obtained by non-applicant/plaintiff by fraud and by non-existent person. Therefore, the application U/o 9 Rule 13, CPC is hereby allowed and the ex-parte decree dated 29.03.2003, passed by Shri Vikas Dhull, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi is hereby set aside." Further, the Learned Court also dismissed another suit filed by the non-applicant/plaintiff bearing Suit No. 352/2002, titled "Charanjeet Singh v. Naresh Kumar. A copy of this order was proved by PW-7 and was exhibited as PW-7/1.
36.2. Neither the relevance, nor the findings contained in the abovementioned judicial orders were challenged by the defendant. Their relevance is beyond doubt since these orders speak about the non-existence of the person upon whose complaint the defendant had issued show-cause notices and suspended the mutation in favour of the plaintiff. These judicial orders were proved by the plaintiff by summoning the judicial record from the courts concerned. Therefore, this court is also bound by the findings of facts recorded in these judicial orders.
Digitally Accordingly, it is established by the plaintiff that the signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar person namely Charanjeet Singh, who filed a complaint Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:58:47 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-29/41
- 30 -
with the defendant against the mutation made in favour of the plaintiff, was a non-existing person and a fictitious identity created by one Advocate Mahip Singh Saini.
36.2.a Further, the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 29.03.2003 passed by Shri Vikas Dhull, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, which were filed by Charanjeet Singh before DDA in support of his complaint, have been set aside by abovementioned order dated 22.02.2010 of the learned SCJ-cum-
RC, West in Suit No.-M-23/2004; and the suit bearing no. 352/2002, titled "Charanjeet Singh v. Naresh Kumar" has also been dismissed. Thus, the plaintiff has established that the entire basis of the complaint of Charanjeet Singh has been rendered null and void ab initio, during the pendency of present proceedings.
36.3. Coming to the second ground i.e., the defendant/DDA did not do an independent inquiry before acting on the complaint of Mr. Charanjeet Singh, the plaintiff relies on the cross-examination of the sole witness produced by the defendant, i.e., DW-1, Sh. Ankit, Assistant Director, DDA. In his cross examination dated 07.04.2025, DW-1 admitted that "after receiving the complaint, Ex.DW-1/6, and before issuance of show cause notice, DDA on its own did not carry out any investigation and had issued the Digitally show cause notice on the basis of the complaint signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:58:53 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-30/41
- 31 -
Ex.DW1/6". During the final arguments, the defendant submitted that no such inquiry/investigation was made by the defendant since there is no mechanism of DDA to conduct the inquiry. However, this submission was not supported by the facts pleaded in the WS and documents filed and relied upon by the defendant in this case. It is elaborated in following points:
36.3.a. In its WS (original as well as amended), the defendant has pleaded that when Charanjeet Singh intimated that "possession of the suit property has been given to him on 20.4.02 in compliance of the orders of the Hon. Court of Sh. B.S. Chumbak, Civil Judge, in Execution Case No.29/01. To ascertain the factual possession at site a programme was fixed for joint inspection at site on 10.3.04. The plaintiff was intimated for this joint inspection vide letter dated 23.2.04 but in response received a letter dated 5.3.04 from him wherein he has submitted that due to date of hearing in the Court, he is not in a position to participate in the joint inspection and, therefore, requesting for fixation of other day for inspection". Defendant's sole witness, DW-1 proved the letters issued by the defendant fixing the joint inspection of the property and then fixing subsequent dates, upon the requests of plaintiff.
Digitally signed by The letters issued by the defendant and dated Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:58:58 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-31/41
- 32 -
23.02.2004, 31.03.2004 and 18.05.2004 are Ex.DW-1/13 to Ex.DW-1/15 (OSR), respectively.
Respective replies of plaintiff seeking re-fixing the dates for inspection due to dates in pending courts cases are letters dated 05.03.2004, 06.04.2004 and 21.05.2004 and exhibited as Ex.DW-1/16 to Ex.DW-1/18 (OSR), respectively. Two inspection reports dated 23.01.2004 and 16.06.2004 are Ex.DW-1/11 & Ex.DW-1/12 (OSR), respectively. Both the inspection reports state that premises was found locked and abandoned/unoccupied for past many years, as per the statement of the neighbours; and no one is living there at 46, DMC (Staff) Co-op House building society Ltd.
36.3.b. Thus, it is clear that a "joint inspection" was scheduled by the defendant, information was sent to the plaintiff and inspection was in fact carried out at the location of the suit property. Another inspection was scheduled at the request of the plaintiff and a second inspection was also carried by the defendant department. However, the defendant could not schedule an inspection which could be conveniently attended by the plaintiff, despite multiple requests of the plaintiff. Further, in his third letter seeking re-fixing of inspection, Digitally signed Lalit by Lalit Kumar dated 21.05.2004 (Ex.DW-1/18), the plaintiff Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:59:02 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-32/41
- 33 -
made a valid request asking the defendant to direct both the parties, i.e. the complainant (Charanjeet Singh) as well as the plaintiff to bring all the necessary original documents regarding title and possession to know the true facts about the property in question and to direct both the parties to be personally present for inspection on a further date of inspection and not on 28.05.2004. The plaintiff requested some other date for inspection. However, it appears from the record that this request of the plaintiff was not acceded to by the defendant.
36.3.c. The noting at the bottom of Ex.DW-1/18 (inspection notice dated 18.05.2004 rescheduling inspection for "28.05.2004 at 3.00 A.M.") stated that "no one turned up for joint inspection on 28.5.2004 at 3.00 P.M. however time was given for 3.00 AM".
36.3.d. From the abovementioned, it is clear that the defendant had, in fact, scheduled and carried out joint inspections of the suit property to ascertain the facts related to the possession of the suit property. These inspections formed a part of the inquiry that was initiated by the defendant upon receiving the complaint from Charanjeet Singh.
Digitally signed by However, the joint inspections, and ergo the Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:59:08 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-33/41
- 34 -
inquiry, remained inconclusive since the plaintiff could not attend the inspections and the defendant did not direct the complainant/Charanjeet Singh to join the same. If the defendant department had accepted the request of the plaintiff and scheduled an inspection after 28.05.2004 directing both the parties to remain personally present along with documents in support of their claims, then the defendant department might have been able to find out the truth regarding the title and possession of the suit property as well as regarding the existence/non-existence of the complainant, Charanjeet Singh.
36.3.e. In view of the discussion in abovementioned paragraphs 36.2.a to 36.2.d, the submission of the defendant that "there was no mechanism of DDA to conduct the inquiry" is rejected as untenable in facts and contradictory to evidence led by the defendant.
36.4. In view of the abovementioned, the plaintiff has established that the defendant did not do an effective independent inquiry upon receiving the complaint from Charanjeet Singh and acted prematurely in sending show cause notices to the plaintiff solely on the basis of said complaint.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:59:12 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-34/41
- 35 -
37. Fourthly and lastly, the plaintiff contended that the mandatory requirement of statutory notice under S.53-B, DD Act, 1957 does not apply to the facts of plaintiff's case since the documentary evidence filed by the defendant shows that the defendant and the plaintiff had exchanged multiple communications before the plaintiff filed the present suit. Plaintiff also submitted that he had even asked for a personal hearing in the matter in his replies to the show cause notices but the defendant considered his replies as unsatisfactory without giving him a personal hearing; that owing to this attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit; and that the defendant was very well aware about the facts of plaintiff's case.
37.1. This factual submission of the plaintiff is supported by the long chain of documents filed by the defendant in the case. From the documents filed and relied upon by the defendant, it is clear that DDA was very well aware about the grievances of the plaintiff and the dissatisfaction of the plaintiff was also clear from the letters sent by him to the defendant. Therefore, it is clear that the present suit was not a surprise for the defendant.
37.2. Secondly, the plaintiff's suit seeking permanent injunction is covered under S. 53-B(3), which carves out an exception to the main section and provides that "Nothing Digitally signed by contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to apply to a Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.27 16:59:17 +0530 suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction of Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-35/41
- 36 -
which the object would be defeated by the giving of the notice or the postponement of the institution of the suit."(emphasis supplied).
37.3. Further, on the requirement of mandatory statutory notice under S. 53-B, DD Act, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Khosla Medical Institute v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr.1 discussed various judgments on this issue and observed that:
"The interpretation as made by the predecessors of this Court, including the Coordinate Benches as well as the Division Bench clarify the position with respect to notice under Section 53B of DD Act and provides that the intention and object of the provision is to intimate the Authority and bring to its knowledge that a suit may be filed against it so that if remediable, the matter does not see the day of light in the Court of law and is resolved/settled at the pre-litigation stage.
Upon perusal of the provision as well as the interpretation attached by this Court, it is found that once the claim culminated into a litigation and reached any forum or any Court of law, requirement of the prior notice befalls to be insignificant. A dismissal on the ground of non- service after the Authority had contested the matter for over 10 years on merits of the case and after a comprehensive and elaborate proceedings on merits, facts and circumstances, considering the material on record as well as the evidence adduced including examination and cross- examination of Digitally signed by parties and witnesses and after deploying judicial machinery to the matter, would not only be in Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:59:22 +0530 1 Khosla Medical Institute v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005237 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-36/41
- 37 -
contravention of the intention and nature of the provision but would also not meet the ends of justice" (emphasis supplied) 37.4. The abovementioned observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The present matter has been contested on merits for over 20 years between the plaintiff and the defendant; evidences have been led by both sides; cross- examinations have been conducted by both sides. Therefore, the present suit cannot be dismissed at the final stage of the proceedings on the ground that mandatory statutory notice was not served.
37.5. Therefore, this ground is also well established by the plaintiff. Dismissal of plaintiff's suit for non-service of notice under S.53-B, DD Act is neither made out in facts nor in law.
38. To summarise the discussion in paragraphs numbered 34 to 37 above, the plaintiff side has successfully established the following grounds in its favour:
i. The show cause notices dated 22.10.2003 (Ex. DW-1/7) and 10.12.2003 (Ex. DW-1/8) issued by the defendant are invalid since these notices neither set out correct conditions applicable to the plaintiff's case, nor provided factual basis justifying Digitally signed Lalit by Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:59:27 +0530 their issuance.
Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-37/41
- 38 -
ii. A person named Charanjeet Singh, who filed a complaint with the defendant against the mutation made in favour of the plaintiff, was a non-existing person and a fictitious identity created by one Advocate Mahip Singh Saini.
iii. The defendant could not show which court cases were pending, on whose basis the show cause notices were issued.
iv. The ex-parte judgment and decree dated 29.03.2003 passed by Shri Vikas Dhull, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, which was the sole basis of complaint filed by Charanjeet Singh before DDA in support of his complaint, has been set aside by learned SCJ-cum-RC, West vide order dated 22.02.2010 in Suit No.-M-23/2004; and the suit bearing no. 352/2002, titled "Charanjeet Singh v. Naresh Kumar" was itself dismissed. Thus, the plaintiff has established that during the pendency of present proceedings, the entire basis of the complaint of Charanjeet Singh has been rendered null and void ab initio.
v. The defendant did not do an effective independent inquiry upon receiving the complaint from Charanjeet Singh and acted prematurely in sending show cause notices to the plaintiff solely on Lalit by Digitally signed Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 16:59:32 the basis of said complaint.
+0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-38/41
- 39 -
vi. Dismissal of plaintiff's suit for non-service of notice under S.53-B, DD Act is not made out in facts.
CONCLUSION
39. Accordingly, the first sub-issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
40. Consequently, second sub-issue i.e., "Whether the plaintiff had exercised any fraud/concealment/misrepresentation in his application for getting the property mutated in his name?" is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
41. As a result of the above discussion, the sole issue in the matter i.e., "Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?" is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
42. Further, through judicial records of various other court cases filed regarding the suit property (which were not filed by Charanjit Singh), the plaintiff side has also shown that all the court cases which were filed by various claimants during the pendency of present suit have also ended. Details of these cases and claimants are not being discussed since they are not relevant for the issue at hand. It was also submitted that at present, the title and possession of suit property lies with Ms. Bhawana Gupta (Plaintiff no. C as per the amended memo of parties) as per a registered deed of sale dated 04.09.2020, executed in her Lalit by Digitally signed Lalit Kumar Date:
favour in compliance of judgment and decree of Hon'ble High Kumar 2025.10.27 16:59:38 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-39/41
- 40 -
Court of Delhi dated 04.03.2020 passed in a suit of specific performance bearing number CS (OS) No. 293/2018. The defendant could not show if any other is pending regarding the suit property, at present. Therefore, there is no basis for the suspension of the mutation to continue.
RELIEF
43. In view of the pleadings of the parties, evidence led, arguments advanced and abovementioned finding on sole issue, the plaintiff has discharged his burden to prove his case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in their favour and against the defendant. Thus, following relief is granted in favour of the plaintiffs:
a. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction against the defendant. The Delhi Development Authority/defendant, its officials, agents, employees, etc are permanently restrained from cancelling the mutation in favour of Naresh Kumar (original plaintiff) and also permanently restrained from determining the Sub Lease Deed in respect of property bearing No. 46, Ishwar Colony, Brahm Sabha Road, Delhi on the basis of show cause notices dated dated 22.10.2003 (Ex. DW-1/7) and 10.12.2003 (Ex. DW-1/8) or otherwise, without following the due process of law and procedure. Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.27 16:59:43 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-40/41
- 41 -
44. Let Court Fees be deposited by the plaintiff side, if found deficient, as per rules.
45. Thereafter, let the decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
46. Parties to bear their own costs.
47. File be consigned to record room after completing the necessary formalities.
(This judgment contains 41 pages and each (LALIT KUMAR) page has been signed by the undersigned) Civil Judge-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open Court on 23.08.2025 Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.27 17:00:06 +0530 Suit No.606938/2016 Naresh Kumar Vs. DDA Page-41/41