Delhi District Court
Mohd. Yunus Khan vs Dda on 31 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. 11334/2016
CNR No. DLWT03-000117-2004
In The Matter Between:
Mohd. Yunus Khan,
Proprietor of M/S Indian Nursery,
Near Masjid Haji Ali Jan, Lado Sarai,
Gurgaon Road, Mehrauli, New Delhi
..........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Wakf Board,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Bachhonka Ghar, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi
3. Mst. Amtul Mughni
D/o Amtul Mannan
4. Mohd. Naseem
Digitally
S/o Late Mohd. Umair
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01
17:15:48
+0530
Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-1/53
- 2 -
5. Mohd. Imran
S/o Late Mohd. Umair
6. Mohd. Farhan
S/o Late Mohd. Saalim
.....................DEFENDANTS
Suit filed on :- 14.07.2004
Judgment Reserved on :- 08.08.2025
Date of decision :- 31.10.2025
Decision :- DISMISSED
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no.1 and 2. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is crucial to state the pleadings in the present suit concisely.
Pleadings of the plaintiff: -
1. As per the amended plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that he is carrying on his business in the name and style of 'Indian Nursery' for selling and producing all kinds of plants, flowers, show plants and road plants, etc. in the premises situated in Khasra No.5, measuring about 3208 square yards (hereinafter referred to as "suit land") for more than 10 years. It is averred that he is in legal possession of the plot of land.
2. It is averred that the officers of the defendant no.1 and 2 started visiting the suit land and threatened the plaintiff with Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:15:54 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-2/53
- 3 -
dispossession and demolition. It is averred that officials of defendant no.2/Delhi Wakf Board started claiming the plot of land as owner being a Wakf property having a Masjid in the name of Masjid Ali Jan and the Qabrastan surrounded by the Masjid; and they alleged that the entire Khasra no. 05 is a Wakf property, has been duly recorded in the survey of Wakf Commissioner Delhi and the said Masjid along with the land of Qabrastan has been duly notified in the gazette notification. It is averred that the officials of the defendant no.
2 last visited on 7th July, 2004 and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and to demolish the entire nursery from the plot in question, in case, the same is not vacated within 15 days; that plaintiff visited the office of defendant no.2 to request that without issuing notice, the defendant no.2 does not have any right to dispossess and demolish the nursery of the plaintiff.
3. It is averred that as per specific provision in the Wakf Act, a person who is in possession of the Wakf property cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. That plaintiff approached defendant no.2 several times to seek creation of a tenancy in his favour, but they delayed the same and continuously threatened him to dispossess and demolish the nursery of the plaintiff from the suit land.
4. It is further averred that after lots of persuasions, defendant no.2/Delhi Wakf Board executed an agreement with the plaintiff on 6th October 2005 and issued a rent receipt for the rent received by the them for the period of June 2005 to September 2005; that thereafter, the defendant no. 2 is Digitally continuously receiving the rent against the rent receipts; that signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:16:00 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-3/53 +0530
- 4 -
legal possession of plaintiff for the last 10 years has been regulated by the defendant no. 2 and the plaintiff is in possession of property in question as a tenant of defendant no.2.
5. It is further averred that the officers of defendant no. 1/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) also claimed the suit land as an owner and frequently visited and threatened to dispossess and demolish the nursery of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff personally visited the office of the defendant no. 1/DDA several times and placed before them many documents showing that he is in possession of suit land for the last several years and no objection was previously raised by the defendant no.1/DDA.
6. It is further averred that the plaintiff has possessory right over the suit land and he cannot be thrown out without due process of law by the defendants; that no show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff before the defendants started threatening dispossession and demolition. It is alleged that the officers of defendant no. 1/DDA visited in the evening of 13th July 2004, and started throwing the plants of the plaintiff but due to the intervention of the respectable persons, the officers of the defendant no. 1/DDA could not succeed; however, they threatened to dispossess and demolish the nursery of the plaintiff on or before 18th July 2004 positively.
7. Lastly, it is averred that the defendants are trying to dispossess and demolish the nursery of the plaintiff without adopting and following the principles of natural justice and without due process of law, hence, the plaintiff has no option to protect his livelihood except by approaching the court by Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:16:05 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-4/53 +0530
- 5 -
way of present suit.
Written Statements and important Applications filed during suit proceedings
8. Upon service of summons of the present suit, defendants appeared and defendant no.2 filed its Written Statement ("WS"). The defense of defendant no.1/DDA was initially struck off since it did not file its WS despite multiple opportunities. However, an application was filed by defendant no.1/DDA under section 151, CPC seeking permission to file its WS; said application was allowed and WS of defendant no.1/DDA was taken on record on 24.04.2006.
9. An application was filed by defendants no. 3 to 6 under O.I, R.10, CPC seeking impleadment as defendants in the present suit. Their application was allowed by order dated 25.05.2006 and these defendants filed a joint WS.
10. His suit was amended by the plaintiff by way of an application under O.VI, R. 17, CPC to bring on record subsequent event of creation of tenancy in his favour. As a result of amendment of plaint, respective amended WS were filed by the defendants.
Pleadings of Defendants
11. Pleadings of defendant no.1/DDA:
11.1. Defendant no.1/DDA took several preliminary objections against the maintainability of the suit of the plaintiff - (i) non-service of mandatory statutory notice Digitally signed by u/s. 53B, the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DD Act); (ii) Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:16:09 +0530 plaintiff has no right to sue because he was an illegal Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-5/53
- 6 -
encroacher, not a lawful occupant; (iii) suit is moot because the plaintiff's unauthorized structures i.e., tin shade/jhuggi were demolished, he is no longer in possession, and the DDA has already fenced the land. 11.2. On merits, it was averred that suit land falls in Khasra No.5 min., Ladha Sarai, which is a government land acquired vide Award No.67/83-84; that physical possession of this land was taken over by DDA through Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), Land & Building Department on 5.8.04; that suit land does not belong to the Delhi Wakf Board, as the plaintiff claims. It is further averred that the plaintiff was an unauthorised encroacher on the government land 'without any rights, title or interest' over the same. It is further averred that the possession of this acquired land of Khasra no.5 min (of which suit land is a part) along with land of other Khasras could not be taken due to an injunction order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.656/83, which was vacated on 31.05.2004. 11.3. It is further averred that the unauthorised structures of Tin shade, jhuggies and 2 plants nurseries (Indian Nursery and Haji Nursery) operating on the suit land were demolished on 05.08.2004 and for removal of nurseries' plants and equipment, further time was granted to the plaintiff up to 20.08.2004 but he failed to do so, consequently, these were removed on 04.10.2004 and the suit land was covered/fenced with boundary wall. It is averred that entire suit land is under possession and Digitally signed by jurisdiction of defendant, DDA and the plaintiff is no Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01 17:16:15 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-6/53
- 7 -
more in possession at site/suit land. 11.4. DDA also denied the rent agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.2/Delhi Wakf Board being without any legal basis. It averred that neither Delhi Wakf Board nor plaintiff has any right, title or interest the suit land as the same is government land, which has been placed at the disposal of DDA, and physical possession of the land was taken over by DDA through LAC/LAB on 05.08.2004. It was reiterated that none except DDA has any right, title or interest in the suit land. 11.5. It is further averred that plaintiff was an unauthorised encroacher and is trying to grab the government land in connivance with the Delhi Wakf Board. It is averred that the suit land is covered with the boundary wall constructed by the DDA, and the plaintiff obtained the interim injunction against DDA by suppressing material facts as he was not in possession of the suit land at that time. It is also averred that Writ Petition No. 656/83 titled as Khwaja Mohd. Sleem Vs. UOI pertaining to the same land has already been dismissed on 31.05.2004 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
11.6. The site plan filed by the plaintiff was denied by DDA. The letters, correspondence and documents filed by the plaintiff were also denied submitting that these documents do not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiff as the suit land belongs to DDA. 11.7. On these grounds, it was averred that the plaintiff was an unauthorised encroacher, therefore, not entitled for any Digitally protection under the law. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:16:19 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-7/53
- 8 -
liable to be dismissed.
12. Pleadings of defendant no.2/Delhi Wakf Board:
12.1. In its amended WS, Delhi Wakf Board ("DWB" in short) challenged the maintainability of plaintiff's case on two grounds, i.e. - first, the suit is not maintainable because the mandatory legal notice required under the Wakf Act was never served upon them, and second, that the plaintiff's suit does not disclose any legitimate cause of action against defendant no.2/DWB.
12.2. On merits, it is averred the property in question, located in Khasra No. 05, is a Wakf property and that the DWB holds all legal rights over it; that plaintiff was a mere trespasser on its land as he was in illegal and unlawful possession of the land for more than 10 years and that several efforts were made by DWB to take possession of land. It is averred that plaintiff applied for a tenancy of suit plot; that DWB legalized the possession of the plaintiff by executing an Agreement of Rent with the plaintiff on 6th October, 2005. It is averred that the plaintiff paid rent from June 2005 to September 2005 against receipts issued by the DWB, but he subsequently defaulted on payments after September 2005. 12.3. The DWB denies the defendant no.1/DDA's claim to the land, stating that the DDA has no right, interest, or claim of any kind over the suit land. It is averred that the suit land has been a documented Qabristan (graveyard) & mosque and as per the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954, all properties which are Qabristan or mosque and Dargah etc. Digitally signed by Lalit are to be looked after as an owner of the same by Delhi Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:09 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-8/53
- 9 -
Wakf Board and accordingly the "entire land" is under supervision and control of DWB for the last more than 50 years. It is averred that a part of the property has been duly notified in Delhi Gazette and the remaining is also "going to be notified in Delhi Gazette" as a wakf property. DWB relies on revenue records to substantiate its claims. It is further averred that officials of DDA had absolutely no right to visit or interfere with the Wakf property. It lastly prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed as far as it concerns DWB.
13. Pleadings of defendants no.3 to 6:
13.1. Defendants no.3 to 6 claim themselves to be the original recorded owners of the land in question.
Defendant no.3 claimed to be one of the alive recorded owners of the suit land and the defendant no.4, 5 & 6 are stated to be the LRs of the other deceased recorded owners who have every right, title or interest in the suit land. At the outset, they aver that plaintiff's suit is fraudulent and that the plaintiff is misusing the court process; that plaintiff is acting in collusion with the Delhi Waqf Board (Defendant No. 2) to make a false claim over the suit land; that the plaintiff has no valid reason to sue because he neither had any right, title or interest in the suit land, nor was he in possession of the suit land, at the time of filing the present suit.
13.2. On merits, it is averred that the suit land along with other land measuring 24 Bighas 12 Biswas, Village Ladha Digitally Sarai, was notified for acquisition vide Award No.67/83- signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar 84; that other recorded owners along with defendant no.3 Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:13 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-9/53
- 10 -
filed a civil writ petition no.656/83 in the Hon'ble High Court for quashing the said acquisition proceedings; that in the said writ petition the Hon'ble High Court Delhi stayed the dispossession of the owners from the suit land as well as from the other lands notified under the said award till the final disposal of the writ petition; that during this stay period, the owners started using this land for Nursery purposes and established three nurseries namely Hill Side Nursery, Haji Nursery and Indian Nursery, over the different portions of the said land. It is averred that the plaintiff approached the father of the defendant no.5, who had established the Indian Nursery and the plaintiff was allowed to join in the said Nursery business due to his expertise in the nursery work on profit sharing basis.
13.3. It is further averred that inducting the plaintiff in Indian Nursery was only a business arrangement and that the plaintiff was never given any ownership or possession rights to the land itself; however, the plaintiff started falsely representing himself as the owner of the Indian Nursery to various government agencies. It is also averred that Delhi Waqf Board has no right to the suit land and allege that DWB's recent claim that the plaintiff is its tenant is a proof of a collusive plan with the plaintiff to grab the suit land.
13.4. Defendants 3 to 6 specifically deny that the plaintiff runs the Indian Nursery or is in legal possession of the suit Digitally signed by land. It is further averred that after dismissal of civil writ Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:18 +0530 petition, the DDA approached them, the true owners, to Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-10/53
- 11 -
facilitate the peaceful take-over of the possession of the suit land from them; that DDA gave them ample time to remove their plants and belongings and finally, defendants 3 to 6 peacefully handed over the possession of the entire acquired land (24 bigha 12 biswa) to the DDA on August 5, 2004.
13.5. It is further averred that the Delhi Waqf Board is the owner or that a rent agreement between DWB and the plaintiff from October 2005 is genuine, calling it a "bogus and sham document". It is averred that since the plaintiff was never in possession, the question of him being dispossessed or receiving legal notices does not arise, and all such stories are fabricated to mislead the court. 13.6. In conclusion, the defendants aver that the plaintiff's entire case is built on false and concocted facts without any legitimate cause of action. They pray that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with heavy costs.
14. Plaintiff filed a replication only to the written statement of defendants no. 3 to 6 and denied their averments.
Issues :-
15. Based on the pleadings of all the parties, issues were framed by the learned predecessor of this court. The issues framed on 07.02.2008 are as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of notice Digitally signed by u/s. 52B of DD Act? OPD Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:23 +0530 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-11/53
- 12 -
present suit? OPD
4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present matter? OPD
5. whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? OPD
6. whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action? OPD Plaintiff's Evidence: -
16. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself, as sole witness, as PW-1. He reiterated the contents of his plaint in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/X and relied upon following documents:
Identification mark Description of document Ex.PW1/1 Site plan Ex.PW1/2 Rent receipt issued by Delhi Wakf Board Mark 'Y' Rent agreement executed by Delhi Wakf Board in favour of plaintiff on 06.10.2005 Ex.PW1/3 Letter dated 25.02.2003 written by DDA to the Indian Nursery Mark 'A' Letter dated 11.06.2004 written by Jawahar Lal Nehru University Ex.PW1/5 Letter dated 18.08.2003 of IRCON International Ltd to Indian Nursery Ex.PW1/7 Letter dated 15.02.2003 written by MCD to Indian nursery Ex.PW1/8 Letter dated 17.06.2004 issued by Delhi Jal Board to Indian Nursery Ex.PW1/9 Letter dated 22.06.2004 issued by Indian Institute of Technology Hauz Khas Ex.PW1/11 (colly) Copy of the revenue records along with Digitally signed by its translation Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:28 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-12/53
- 13 -
Ex.PW1/12 Copy sent to the plaintiff of letter dated 22.07.2009 written by Chaudhary Mateen Ahmed, Chairman Delhi Wakf Board to Vice Chairman DDA Mark B (colly) Supply orders from Dy. Director (Horticulture), Div-II and NSGP Manesar, Gurgaon dated 28.08.1991, supply order dated 20.09.2000 from Dy. Director (Horticulture) Div-II, CPWD, New Delhi; Letter from Pandey Road lines; letter from Plantsman seeds; letter for Sh. Satya Narain Nursery Mark A (colly) The Bills, vouchers issued by the ICT Maurya Sherton Mark B Warning notice dated 15.02.2003, issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
17. PW-1 was cross-examined by learned counsels for defendant no.1/DDA and defendants 3 to 6. No cross examination was conducted by learned counsel for defendant no.2/DWB, despite opportunity.
18. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of DDA, PW-1 identified Ex. PW-1/DX6 (letter dated 04.08.2004) as written by him; in this letter, he acknowledged receipt of a DDA notice to vacate dated 05.08.2004 and sought time to vacate by 31.08.2004. He admitted that DDA carried out demolition at the suit land on 04.10.2004 (i.e., demolition was admitted). He accepted that the boundary wall shown in photographs Ex. PW-1/DX1-DX3 and DX5 was constructed by DDA. He deposed that suit land is measuring 6 bigha 17 biswas situated in Khasra no.5. He denied suggestions -
Digitally related to acquisition of entire Khasra no.5; related to site plan signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:33 +0530 Ex.PW1/1 being wrong and not as per site; that rent Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-13/53
- 14 -
agreement (Mark X and Ex. PW1/DX7) being prepared in collusion with employee of DWB, etc.
19. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of defendants no. 3 to 6, PW-1 admitted that he could not state exactly when he first occupied the suit land; that when he occupied it, the suit land was vacant & forest-like with pits; he admitted that he did not have any written permission to occupy the suit land; he deposed that he is in occupation of 3208 square yads of land and the remaining land of Khasra no.5 belongs to DDA (i.e., admits ownership of DDA over majority of Khasra no.5 and fails to explain how he has reached the conclusion that the DDA owns all the remaining Khasra no.5 and not 3208 square yards allegedly in his possession). He acknowledged that he had applied to the Delhi Wakf Board for tenancy (around 2000) and that the Wakf Board had orally allowed occupation; he could not produce prior documents proving tenancy before 2005. He also admitted that documents Ex.PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/9 do not mention his name and only the name 'Indian Nursery' is mentioned. He denied suggestion that Indian Nursery was established by Mohd.
Umair along with his son Mohd. Imran. He says that Indian Nursery was established by him. He pleaded ignorance related to suit land being subject of acquisition proceedings and to passing of award no.67/83-84. Witness was confronted with Kabza karyawahi of DDA dated 05.08.2004 in respect of award no. 67/83-84 of Khasra no.5 along with other khasra numbers - and he deposed that no body took possession from him and he remained in possession. He denied collusion with Digitally DWB and resisted suggestions that the rent signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:37 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-14/53
- 15 -
agreement/receipts were collusive; denied suggestion that DWB had issued the rent receipt and rent agreement for the land which does not belong to them. He also deposed that rent receipts were issued to him by DWB till 01.04.2016 (however, same were not produced).
Defendants' Evidence: -
20. Evidence on behalf of DDA (Defendant No.1):- 20.1. DW-1 (Jai Prakash, Patwari) filed affidavit evidence (Ex. DW-1/A) and reiterated the contents of WS of defendant no.1/DDA. He relied upon following documents:
Identification Description of document mark Ex.DW1/1 Copy of demolition report dated 05.08.2004 Ex.DW1/2 Copy of demolition report dated 04.10.2004 Ex.DW1/3 Copy of award bearing No.67/83-84 dated 27.10.1983 Ex.DW1/4 Possession Proceedings/Kabja Karwahi dated 05.08.2004 Ex.DW1/5 Aks Sajra Ex.DW1/6 Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 31.05.2004 dismissing Writ Petition No.656/83 titled as Khwaja Mohd. Saleem Vs. UOI pertaining to the suit land Ex.DW1/7 Copy of complaint dated 15.6.2005 Ex.DW1/8 Copy of complaint dated 29.6.2005 Ex.DW1/9 Land Acquisition Collector (PD) issued notice U/s 12 (2) and 31(1) of L.A. Act, 1894 to Sh. Mohd. Saleem Ex.DW1/10 Copy of order dated 11.02.2005 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Date:
dismissing the SLP Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:42 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-15/53
- 16 -
Ex.DW1/11 Police complaint on 27.02.2007 with the SHO, P.S. Mehrauli 20.2. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for plaintiff, he accepted that much of his evidence was based on record kept by DDA and that he had no personal knowledge of events prior to 2016. He stated that several documents he exhibited were photocopies and that originals were not in his custody. He could not identify signatures of Ex. DW1/5 and had no personal recollection of the precise details of demolition or the occupants of jhuggies which were demolished. He accepted that there was no photograph of the demolished jhuggies in his possession.
20.3. He further admitted that he did not know whether any notice had been issued by DDA to the plaintiff declaring him an unauthorised occupant, and that no document on record specifically mentions the plaintiff's name as person whose possession was taken by DDA. He voluntarily stated that the khasra number of the acquired land and handing-over of possession to DDA were reflected in records already exhibited as Ex. DW-1/4, and that the suit land formed part thereof. When asked whether DDA had taken any legal action against the plaintiff between 2004 and 2017, he replied that the plaintiff had sought fifteen days' time to vacate the land, and that the Court thereafter passed an order of status quo. He admitted that the plaintiff presently remained in possession of about Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar 3,200 sq. yards owing to the Court's status-quo order. Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:47 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-16/53
- 17 -
20.4. He stated that the mosque 'Ali Jaan Masjid' was neither acquired by DDA nor under its possession, and estimated its area as about 15 biswa. He acknowledged that neither the mosque nor the plaintiff's nursery had been demarcated. He admitted that no demarcation report of Khasra No. 5 existed showing the extent of occupation by different parties. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff's nursery formed part of the 15 biswa mosque area or that the land belonged to the Wakf Board.
He denied suggestions that the suit land was never acquired, that it was Wakf property, or that the plaintiff was in lawful possession as a tenant of the Wakf Board. 20.5. He asserted that DDA had constructed a boundary wall around the property in 2004, but admitted that he had no document proving such construction. He denied that the boundary wall was demolished by DDA on multiple occasions. Ultimately, he acknowledged having no personal knowledge of past events and having deposed solely on the basis of official records. 20.6. DW-2 (G.S. Meena, Record Keeper, LAC South) was summoned and produced the original Award No.67/83-84 (Ex. DW-1/3) and Kabza Karvai dated 05.08.2004 (Ex. DW-1/4) and deposed that the copies on record are correct copies of the original. DW-2 was cross- examined by learned counsel for plaintiff. However, the Digitally signed by cross-examination stands rejected, as per S.139, Indian Lalit Kumar Lalit Evidence Act, 18721 since DW2/G.S. Meena only Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:52 +0530 1 S. 139. Cross-examination of person called to produce a document - A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-17/53
- 18 -
produced the summoned record and he could not have been cross-examined as a witness.
21. Evidence on behalf of Delhi Wakf Board (Defendant No.2):-
21.1. DW-2 (Mohd. Yunus Khan, Zonal Wakf Officer, Delhi Wakf Board) filed his evidence affidavit (Ex. DW-
2/A) and tendered documents in support of the Wakf Board's case and relied upon following documents:
Identification mark Description of document Ex.DW2/1 Authority Letter Ex.DW2/2 Rent Agreement Ex.DW2/3 (colly) Rent receipts Ex.DW2/4 Copies of revenue records Ex.DW2/5 Gazette notification 21.2. DW-2 was cross examined by learned counsels for plaintiff, defendant no.1/DDA and defendants 3 to 6. 21.3. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of plaintiff, he admitted that plaintiff is a tenant of Delhi Wakf Board for last 20 years; denied suggestion that defendants 1 to 6 are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, in collusion with each other. 21.4. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of DDA, he deposed that he did not know whether Khasra No. 5, measuring 6 bighas and 17 biswas, was acquired under Award No. 67/83-84. He volunteered, however, that lands Digitally signed by Lalit comprising kabristan (graveyard), masjid, or khanqah Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:17:56 +0530 produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.
Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-18/53
- 19 -
cannot be acquired under any circumstance, being religious properties. According to the record, the property mentioned in Ex. DW-3/5 contained both a mosque and an adjoining graveyard. He denied the suggestion that the area of the mosque and graveyard together was only 9 biswas in Khasra No. 5 min. He clarified--though inconsistently--that the mosque and graveyard are situated in Khasra No. 5 and not in Khasra No. 5 min, but then volunteered that the mosque stands in Khasra No. 5 min and the graveyard in Khasra No. 5. When asked whether he had produced any document on record showing that Khasra No. 5 belongs to the Delhi Wakf Board, he answered in the affirmative; he maintained that, according to the notification Ex. DW-3/5, the area of the mosque is 15 biswas, and rejected the suggestion that it was only 9 biswas. He volunteered that a corrigendum had subsequently been issued correcting the measurement. When shown the photographs Ex. PW-1/DX-1 to 6, the witness stated that he could not identify whether the property shown therein corresponded to Khasra No. 5. He denied that his affidavit was false or that the suit property belonged to DDA and not to the Wakf Board. He expressed inability to describe what lay on the right-hand or left-hand side of the mosque; he admitted that a boundary wall existed around the mosque, but denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely before the Court. 21.5. In his cross examination conducted on behalf of Digitally defendants 3 to 6, he deposed that he had personally seen signed by the disputed land and that a mosque known as Masjid Haji Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:18:01 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-19/53
- 20 -
Ali Jaan is situated adjacent to it. According to him, the mosque stands on approximately 700-800 sq. yards of land, while the portion let out by the Delhi Wakf Board to the plaintiff measures about 3,200 sq. yards. He asserted that the Delhi Wakf Board possesses documents establishing its ownership over this land, though he admitted that those documents were not filed on record, despite being in the custody of the Board. 21.6. He affirmed that the area of Khasra No. 5, Village Ladha Sarai, is 6 bighas 17 biswas, and claimed that the entire Khasra No. 5 belongs to the Delhi Wakf Board. He denied the suggestion that the Board is not the owner of the disputed land or that it lacked authority to lease the property to the plaintiff. He further stated that no graveyard presently exists on the disputed portion, but maintained that the Board is the owner of the entire 6 bighas 17 biswas.
21.7. The witness admitted that the rent agreement Ex.
DW-2/3 was executed only for a period of 11 months and that no subsequent rent agreement was executed between the Board and the plaintiff thereafter. He deposed that the plaintiff continued paying rent up to March 2018, although no rent receipts for the later period were placed on record.
21.8. He denied the suggestion that the rent agreement had been falsely executed in collusion with the plaintiff or that the Board had acted without authority; denied that the suit land had been acquired by DDA or that the plaintiff encroached upon acquired government land. The witness Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01 17:18:06 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-20/53
- 21 -
reiterated that the Delhi Wakf Board is the lawful owner of the entire suit land.
21.9. DW-4 (Mohd. Aarif, Lower Division Clerk, Delhi Wakf Board) tendered the summoned records and exhibited copies of letters dated 05.03.2007 and 25.07.2007 [Ex. DW-2/2 (OSR) and Ex. DW-2/4 (OSR), respectively], copy of corrigendum dated 05.03.2007 [Ex. DW-2/4(OSR)] and copy of khatoni entries (Ex. DW-2/5).
22. No evidence was led by defendants no.3 to 6.
23.The final arguments were addressed by all the parties except defendants no.3 to 6, who remained absent during the entire course of final arguments. The entire record has been carefully perused. During the course of final arguments, the parties have placed reliance on their respective pleadings and evidence led on their behalf as stated herein above. It is imperative to evaluate the material facts as per the evidences relied upon by the parties to the suit, before giving issue-wise findings.
Analysis
24. In a gist, the case of the plaintiff is that he is the proprietor of M/s Indian Nursery, carrying on the business for over 10 years at the suit land. He claims to have been in peaceful, continuous, and lawful possession of the said land, upon which he established his nursery, and asserts that the land belongs to the Delhi Wakf Board/defendant no.2, which, after considering his long-standing occupation, executed a rent Digitally agreement dated 06.10.2005 in his favour and issued rent signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.11.01 17:18:10 +0530 receipts acknowledging him as its tenant. The plaintiff alleges Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-21/53
- 22 -
that officials of the Delhi Development Authority/defendant no.1, without any lawful authority or due process, threatened to demolish and dispossess him from the land on several occasions in July 2004, prompting him to approach this Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession or demolishing any part of his nursery. He maintains that his possession is bona fide, lawful, and protected under law, and that the acts of DDA are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.
25. The case of the DDA/defendant no.1 is that the entire land comprising Khasra No. 5min, Village Ladha Sarai, including the portion claimed by the plaintiff, is Government land duly acquired through Award No. 67/83-84 dated 27.10.1983, and that physical possession was taken on 05.08.2004 through formal Kabza Karvai proceedings. It asserts that the plaintiff was merely an unauthorised encroacher who had raised temporary structures, including tin sheds and nursery installations, on Government land without right or title. DDA states that all such unauthorised structures were demolished on 05.08.2004 and again on 04.10.2004, and that the land was subsequently secured by constructing a boundary wall by DDA. It contends that the plaintiff's claim of tenancy from the Delhi Wakf Board is false and collusive, as the land never belonged to the Wakf Board and could not have been leased by it. The DDA therefore maintains that the plaintiff has no lawful possession or locus standi, and that the suit is Digitally signed by misconceived, frivolous, and liable to dismissal. Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01
26.The Delhi Wakf Board/defendant no.2, on the other hand, 17:18:15 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-22/53
- 23 -
supports the plaintiff's possession, asserting that Khasra No. 5, Village Ladha Sarai, is a Wakf property comprising a mosque and adjoining land historically used as a qabristan, which has been under the supervision and control of the Board for several decades and stands notified as a Wakf property in official gazette. It claims that the plaintiff had been in occupation of a portion of the land for many years, and that the Board, in recognition of such occupation, regularised his possession by executing a rent agreement dated 06.10.2005 and issuing rent receipts for June- September 2005. The Board denies that DDA has any right, title, or jurisdiction over the property and asserts that religious properties such as mosques and graveyards cannot be acquired by the Government. It therefore maintains that the plaintiff's possession is lawful and derived from the Wakf Board, and that DDA's interference is illegal.
27. At the outset, it is important to point out that there is no dispute that "Khasra no.5" as mentioned by the plaintiff and defendant no.2/DWB and the "Khasra no.5min", mentioned by the defendant no.1/DDA refer to the same piece of land. None of the parties raised any contention related to the identity of the Khasra number of the suit land.
28. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF 'INDIAN NURSERY' - the plaintiff's claim regarding ownership of 'Indian Nursery' was specifically denied by the defendants no.3 to 6 whereas plaintiff has claimed himself to be the proprietor of 'Indian Nursery'. However, he has failed to file Digitally signed by Lalit a single document to show he is either founder, owner, Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:18:28 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-23/53
- 24 -
manager or proprietor of Indian Nursery. There is no document related to Indian Nursery - such as business registration, VAT or GST registration, or any kind of permission/license from any local authority, etc. Documents such as exhibits PW1/3, PW1/4, PW1/5, PW1/6, PW1/8, PW1/9, PW1/10 - are only supply orders, client letters from various agencies and do not even mention the name of the plaintiff as proprietor/owner/manager of Indian Nursery. These documents are only addressed to 'Indian Nursery'. These documents do not establish statutory or proprietary title in the plaintiff (e.g., no trade/firm registration, licences, bank statements or tax records were produced linking the plaintiff personally to 'Indian Nursery'). Further, the document - Ex.PW1/7 - which is a warning notice from Municipal corporation of Delhi - is addressed to Indian Nursery and one "Sh. Anuj Khan" by name and not to the plaintiff. This shows that in the records of MCD, someone else, other than the plaintiff, was recorded as owner/manager/proprietor of Indian Nursery. The plaintiff has failed to substantiate his claim over the Indian Nursery except for his self-serving statements. The document relied upon by him show business activities of Indian Nursery, but not the legal fact of proprietorship or an enforceable possessory title of the plaintiff.
29. REGARDING THE SITE PLAN - EXHIBIT PW1/1 - For an injunction in respect of an immovable property, the subject- matter must be identified with reasonable precision. An Digitally injunction cannot be granted for an unidentifiable immovable signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Kumar Date:
2025.11.01 17:18:51 +0530 property. A court of law must have a clear and specific Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-24/53
- 25 -
description of the property to issue a legally enforceable order. Without a proper identification, any injunction would be vague, ineffective, and impossible to execute. 29.1. Firstly, DDA has specifically denied the site plan;
therefore, it was essential for plaintiff to prove the location of the suit property by producing cogent evidence.
29.2. Secondly, the plaint does not either mention or describe the boundaries of the suit land claimed to be occupied by the plaintiff.
29.3. Thirdly, the site plan does not provide the exact location of the plot within khasra no. 5 - there is no bird's eye view of khasra no. 5 to show where the suit land lies within the khasra no.5. The distance of the boundaries of suit land vis-à-vis the boundaries of khasra no.5 has not been mentioned. Further, southern boundary of the suit land is not defined, i.e., nothing is mentioned as to what lies adjacent to southern boundary. 29.4. Further, straight line boundaries have been shown in the site plan, however, plaintiff has not alleged existence of any built up structure on the entire plot or that the suit land is surrounded by pucca boundaries. This becomes crucial since the plaintiff admitted in his cross examination that "When I came into possession of the suit property, the same was lying vacant" and that "When I occupied the suit property, it was a forest area and the land was covered by pits". In his plaint, the plaintiff has Digitally signed by not alleged that either he or defendant no.2 built the Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar boundaries around a plot of 3208 square yards after the Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:01 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-25/53
- 26 -
plaintiff came in possession of the same. Therefore, the boundaries drawn in the site plan appear to be only imaginary.
29.5. Fourthly, as per the site plan, most of the suit property is an open land with only two small structures built in small portions (area of these structures is neither mentioned in plaint, nor in the site plan). Therefore, boundaries of the suit land could not be identified and proved without any demarcation. No demarcation was done to identify the suit land in the present case; nor was there any on-site evidence from a surveyor or revenue official that separates the 3208 square yards of suit land from the rest of the land in Khasra no.5. In his cross examination, upon being questioned by the learned counsel for plaintiff, DW-1/Jai Prakash, Patwari testified that there was no demarcation done in khasra no.5. This statement goes against the plaintiff himself. Without demarcation, suit land could not be identified. Therefore, the suit land is unidentifiable for this reason as well. 29.6. Fifthly, the site plan has been signed by the architect "Anil Kumar Sharma", who was never produced as a witness by the plaintiff to prove the site plan. In absence of any demarcation, it was necessary for the plaintiff to produce the author of the document to tender explanation as to how the boundaries of the suit land were identified and drawn in the site plan-PW1/1. However, the plaintiff has failed to produce the author/architect of the site plan.
Digitally Therefore, the site plan remains an unproved document - signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar hence rejected from the evidence.
Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:05 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-26/53
- 27 -
29.7. It is a fact that there is no separate plot number for the suit land. The boundaries of suit land are also not clearly defined. These aspects, combined with the admission of plaintiff regarding vacant & forest-like nature of the suit land, absence of allegation regarding existence of pucca boundaries, absence of any authoritative demarcation and site plan being rejected as an unproved document, leads to the sole conclusion that -
identity of the portion of land, for which the plaintiff is seeking the relief of permanent injunction, is not established. As a result, the suit land is not identifiable and no injunction can be granted on an unidentified immovable property.
30. REGARDING AREA OF SUIT LAND: In his plaint, the plaintiff alleges that he is carrying his business from 3208 sq. yds of land in Khasra no.5. In his cross examination dated 01.06.2013 conducted on behalf of DDA he stated that "The suit property is measuring 6 bigha 17 biswas situated in khasra no. 5". It is not in dispute that the area of entire Khasra no.5/5min is 6 bigha 17 biswas.
30.1. On the other hand, in his plaint and the (now rejected) site plan (Ex.PW1/1), the area of suit land is mentioned as 3208 square yards. Further, even in his cross examination conducted on 06.01.2016 by learned counsel on behalf of defendants no.3 to 6, plaintiff/PW-1 deposed that "I am in occupation of 3208 square yards of land...The remaining Digitally signed by land of khasra no.5 belongs to DDA..." Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar 30.2. From the above mentioned portions of cross Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:11 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-27/53
- 28 -
examinations of PW1 on two different dates, it is clear that plaintiff contradicted himself and tried to set up a new case in his cross examination (dated 01.06.2013) by implying that the suit property is of the same area as the entire khasra no.5; whereas, later on (in cross examination dated 06.01.2016), he not only reverts to his original version of occupying 3208 sq. yards, but also admits the title of DDA over rest of Khasra no.5. Further, the claim of plaintiff that "suit property is measuring 6 bigha 17 biswas situated in khasra no. 5" in cross examination is falsified by various other documentary evidence relied upon by plaintiff himself -
30.2.1. Rent agreement dated 06.10.2005 between defendant no.2 and the plaintiff (Exhibit PW1/DX7) mention 3208 sq. yards (without defining any boundaries).
30.2.2. Letter dated 22.07.2009 written by wakf chairman of Delhi wakf Board to the Vice-Chairman, DDA - Ex.PW1/12 - also mentions that "some portion has been let out to one Mr. Mohd. Yunus (the plaintiff), who is running his nursery therein since long." Therefore, it is clear that as per defendant no.2, only "some portion" of khasra no.5 was let out to the plaintiff, and not the entire khasra no.5. Further, even DW2 - Mohd. Younus Khan, ZWO, Delhi wakf board, testified that the land given on rent by Delhi wakf board is "about 3200 square yards" and not entire khasra no.5 (measuring 6 bigha 17 biswa) was let out Digitally signed by Lalit to the plaintiff.
Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:16 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-28/53
- 29 -
30.2.3. Letter dated 04.08.2004 - Exhibit PW1/DX6 - In his cross examination dated 01.06.2013 conducted on behalf of DDA the plaintiff/PW-1 admitted that Ex.PW1/DX6 was written by him to the Minister for Urban Development, Government of India. This letter also mentions the area of land as "measuring about 3200 sq. yards situated in Khasra no. 5 at Mehrauli". 30.2.4. In his same cross examination, plaintiff has also testified that "I am in occupation of 3208 square yards of land...The remaining land of Khasra no.5 belongs to DDA". This is admission on part of the plaintiff of the title/ownership of DDA over majority of portion of land falling in Khasra no.5/5min. The plaintiff fails to explain how he has distinguished which land belongs to DDA and which land belongs to the Delhi Wakf Board, since there was no demarcation of land, no pucca boundaries around the suit land.
30.3. In view of above, plaintiff has himself jeopardized his credibility as a witness by falsely claiming that"suit property is measuring 6 bigha 17 biswas situated in khasra no. 5".
30.4. Further, in his cross examination dated 06.01.2016, plaintiff/PW-1 admits the title of DDA over Khasra no.5 (except 3208 square yards). Thus, title of DDA over remaining portion of Khasra no.5 is admitted by the plaintiff. However, since there is no demarcation to separate 3208 sq yards from rest of the Khasra no.5, the Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:21 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-29/53
- 30 -
plaintiff's plea of being in possession/occupation of 3208 sq. yards is unsubstantiated with any material.
31. LACK OF EXPLANATION OF HIS ENTRY AND CONTINUING ALLEGED OCCUPATION OF SUIT LAND BY THE PLAINTIFF. - In his plaint as well as the evidence, the plaintiff failed to explain how he came to be in possession of any portion of suit land, when exactly he came in possession, and whether he was a licensee or lessee, and, if so, whose? 31.1. In his cross examination dated 06.01.2016, plaintiff/PW-1 stated that "I cannot tell the exact year in which I came in possession of the suit property. When I came in possession of the suit property, the same was lying vacant. When I came into possession of the land, I was aware that the land belongs to Wakf Board. I have not taken any written permission from Wakf Board to occupy the land. Wakf Board officials have orally allowed me to occupy the land. I had applied in the year 2000 with the Delhi Wakf board to make me a tenant in the land in question".
31.2. In his cross examination conducted by the plaintiff, DW-02 (Mohd. Younus Khan/Witness of Delhi Wakf Board) accepted the suggestion put to him and stated that "it is true to suggest that Mohd. Younus is tenant of Delhi Waqf Board for last 20 years". However, this statement of witness is beyond the pleadings and unsubstantiated by any documents for following reasons:-
Digitally i. In its written statement, defendant no.2/DWB had signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar averred that "plaintiff is in possession of wakf land Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:25 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-30/53
- 31 -
for the last more than ten years illegally and unlawfully".
ii. The DWB admitted rent agreement in its WS and stated that a rent agreement was executed on 06.10.2005 and plaintiff paid rent for the period of June, 2005 to September, 2005 against the rent receipt issued by DWB. It also submitted that the plaintiff had failed to pay the rent after September, 2005.
iii. In his cross examination conducted by the Ld. Counsel for defendants no.3 to 6, the witness of Delhi wakf Board DW-02 (Mohd. Younus Khan) testified that the rent agreement "is only for 11 months. After that, no rent agreement was executed by the Delhi Waqf Board in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has paid the rent upto March 2018. The rent paid by Mohd. Younus was continued but rent receipt was not placed on the record." (emphasis supplied) 31.3. Thus, the plea of plaintiff that DWB "orally allowed"
him to occupy the land stands disproved since DWB itself saw the plaintiff as an illegal and unlawful encroacher before it executed the rent agreement in October, 2005. The testimony of DW-02 (Mohd. Younus Khan/Witness of Delhi Wakf Board) stating that "it is true to suggest that Mohd. Younus is tenant of Delhi Waqf Board for last 20 years" is rejected being beyond the pleadings and Digitally unsubstantiated by any documents placed on record. signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar 31.4. Further, the rent agreement dated 06.10.2005 Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:29 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-31/53
- 32 -
between defendant no.2 and the plaintiff (Exhibit PW1/DX7) was only for the period of 11 months from 1st June, 2005 to 30th April, 2006 and rent receipts were issued only for the period of June, 2005 to September, 2005 (admitted by DW-02, witness of Defendant no.2/DWB). No other rent receipts were filed either by the plaintiff or by DWB. A rent agreement for 11 months which was executed after more than 10 years of his alleged occupation/possession of suit land, does not validate plaintiff's entry into or previous possession of the suit land.
31.5. In their written statements, defendant no.1/DDA and 2/DWB both have averred that plaintiff was an illegal encroacher on the suit land. It is pertinent to mention that no replication was filed by the plaintiff to the written statements of either DDA or DWB. Further, plaintiff failed to give any explanation regarding the exact time and reason for his entry into and occupation of suit land in his pleading as well as cross examination. 31.6. Thus, in absence of any documentary proof of his legal occupation/possession prior to 2004 - such as pre-
2004 rent receipts, allotment letters, licence, or continuity of payment records, etc. - leaves the account of entry into and previous possession of suit land uncorroborated. This only validates the claims of DDA and DWB that plaintiff was an encroacher on and in illegal possession of government land.
32. PLAINTIFF'S MINISTER URBAN Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar LETTER TO FOR
Kumar 2025.11.01
17:19:36
+0530
Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-32/53
- 33 -
DEVELOPMENT - In his cross examination dated 01.06.2013, plaintiff/PW-1 was confronted with a letter dated 04.08.2004 by the counsel for DDA. PW-1 admitted that this letter was written by him and identified his signatures on the said letter. This letter was exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX6. The plaintiff has addressed the letter 04.08.2004 (Ex.PW1/DX6) to the Minister for Urban Development, Government of India. In this letter, the plaintiff admits that DDA has served upon him a notice to vacate the land on 05.08.2004, failing which DDA would demolish the Nursery; he wrote that there are thousands of plants in the nursery and it would not be possible to shift those plants within the given time and requested that DDA be instructed to extend the date at least up to 31.08.2004 by which time he undertakes to shift the nursery from the land in question.
32.1. This letter of plaintiff shows that the plaintiff intended and undertook to vacate the suit land and only sought more time for the same. This intention to vacate unequivocally points towards plaintiff's knowledge about his lack of any right, title or interest over the land which he was occupying. If the plaintiff had any right to occupy the suit land when DDA's notice was received by him, he would have written to either DDA challenging its notice or would have mentioned any of his right, title or interest in the suit land in his letter to the Minister for Urban Development. Any prudent person having any right, title or interest in an immovable property would have done the same.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:41 32.2. In view of abovementioned analysis, it is safe to +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-33/53
- 34 -
conclude that either on the date when plaintiff received DDA's notice to vacate or on 04.08.2004 (when he wrote the letter to the Minsiter for Urban Development), the plaintiff did not have any right, title or interest in the land. Further, the subsequent rent agreement of October, 2005 with DWB as well as the present suit of the plaintiff appear to be only an after-thought to create an illusion of plaintiff's right or interest in the suit land.
33. THE RENT AGREEMENT OF 06.10.2005 BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DWB - The Rent agreement dated 06.10.2005 between defendant no.2/DWB and the plaintiff (Exhibit PW1/DX7) is only for 11 months from 01.06.2005 to 30.05.2006. This rent agreement was entered between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 after DDA allegedly dispossessed the plaintiff. Kabza karyawahi (possession proceedings) dated 05.08.2004 which is Ex.DW1/4 and demolition reports dated 05.08.2004 and 04.10.2004 (Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2, respectively) have been duly proved. 33.1. As per Kabza karyawahi (possession proceedings) dated 05.08.2004 which is Ex.DW1/4, possession of 24 bigha 12 biswa (including khasra no. 5 min (6 bigha and 2 biswa) was taken by Land & Building department and was handed over to DDA. Further, as per demolition report dated 04.10.2004 (exhibit DW1/2), Indian nursery (of plaintiff) and one Haji Nursery were demolished. The demolition of 04.10.2004 has been admitted by the Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Lalit Kumar Date:
2025.11.01 17:19:48 plaintiff in his cross examination dated 01.06.2013. +0530 Therefore, it is clear that defendant no.1/DDA had taken Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-34/53
- 35 -
physical possession of the Khasra no.5 before the rent agreement dated 06.10.2005 between defendant no.2 and the plaintiff (Ex.PW1/DX7). Therefore, the rent agreement (Ex. PW1/DX7) ceases to have any evidentiary value as plaintiff was already out of possession as duly proved by kabza karyawahi Exhibit DW1/4 and demolition report dated 04.10.2004 (exhibit DW1/2). 33.2. Further, witness of DWB - DW-02, Mohd. Younus Khan, ZWO, Delhi wakf board - also testified that the rent agreement was only for 11 months and no other rent agreement was executed by Delhi wakf board in favour of the plaintiff. This rent agreement can neither validate the previous occupation of suit land by the plaintiff, in any case, nor claim to have reinstitute the dispossessed plaintiff.
34. NO REPLICATION TO WRITTEN STATEMENT (WS) OF DDA TO DENY FACT OF DISPOSSESSION - In its WS, DDA alleged dispossession of plaintiff in view of taking possession of suit land [via Kabza karyawahi (possession proceedings) dated 05.08.2004 which is Ex.DW1/4] and demolishing the unauthorised structures of tin shade, jhuggies, and plant nurseries on the suit land [via demolition reports dated 05.08.2004 and 04.10.2004 (Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2, respectively]. It was also averred in the WS of DDA that "consequently these were removed on 4.10.04 and the suit land was covered/fenced with boundary wall. The plaintiff is no more possession at site. Entire suit land is under Digitally signed by possession and jurisdiction of defendant, DDA." (emphasis Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01 17:19:55 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-35/53
- 36 -
supplied)
34.1. The abovementioned specific material allegations of facts of demolition of his nursery, dispossession of plaintiff and construction of a boundary wall by DDA, were not denied by the plaintiff by way of a replication. As per demolition report dated 04.10.2004 (exhibit DW1/2), Indian nursery (of plaintiff) and one Haji Nursery were demolished. The demolition of 04.10.2004 as well as construction of boundary wall by DDA was admitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination dated 01.06.2013.
34.2. The admissions regarding demolition as well as construction of boundary wall by DDA, made by the plaintiff also amount to an admission to dispossession, since DDA raised its boundary wall after demolition. Plaintiff admitted that the boundary wall shown in photographs Exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX1, PW1/DX2, PW1/DX3 and PW1/DX5 was constructed by DDA. 34.3. Further, during the trial, the plaintiff filed an application on 10.05.2007, under S.151, CPC seeking permission to open a gate to the premises/nursery. In this application, the plaintiff submitted that the DDA had closed the big gate/way to the nursery by making walls of heavy stones. This application also amounts to an admission that ingress/egress to the suit land was shut by DDA by making a boundary wall.
34.4. In view of the abovementioned, it is concluded that Digitally the plaintiff had acceded to the facts of dispossession, signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:20:01 +0530 demolition and construction of boundary wall by DDA -
Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-36/53
- 37 -
therefore, his subsequent rent agreement (dated 06.10.2005) as well as his claim of subsequent occupation/possession are negated. If the plaintiff still claims any occupation/possession of suit land, after admitting demolition and construction of boundary wall by DDA (and consequently, dispossession), that can only be explained as further illegal encroachment on government land by disturbing/breaking the boundary wall constructed by DDA.
35. POSSESSION FOLLOWS TITLE - For an open, vacant piece of land, the legal principle is that possession follows title, meaning that the legal owner is presumed to be in possession. The suit land is said to be a nursery, without any specification of any pucca structures built thereupon. It has been admitted by the plaintiff/PW-1 in his cross examination dated 06.01.2016 that "When I came into possession of the suit property, the same was lying vacant" and that "When I occupied the suit property, it was a forest area and the land was covered by pits" and as per the site plan/Ex.PW-1/1 (although, rejected from evidence above), most of the suit property is an open land with only two structures built in small portions (area of these structures is neither mentioned in plaint, nor in the site plan). Therefore, this sufficiently proves that the suit land is an open, mostly vacant piece of land and its possession shall be presumed to be with the title holder. Since the DDA has proved its title over 6 biswa 2 bigha of khasra no.5min by proving the award (explained under next Digitally heading); it is presumed that DDA is in possession of the suit signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar land and not the plaintiff. The case set up by the plaintiff is Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:20:05 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-37/53
- 38 -
not sufficient to rebut the said presumption, in view of the observations made above and below.
36. DDA HAS PROVED ITS TITLE DOCUMENTS - The land acquisition Award no. 67/83-84 dated 27.10.1983 as Ex.DW1/3; Kabza karyawahi (possession proceedings) dated 05.08.2004 as Ex.DW1/4 have been duly proved by the defendant no.1/DDA by production of original documents in Court (produced by DW2, Sh. G.S. Meena, working as Record Keeper, LAC South, Saket, New Delhi). Further, demolition reports dated 05.08.2004 and 04.10.2004 (Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2) have also been proved by DW-1 Sh. Jai Prakash, Patwari by explaining that the copies placed on record are attested true copies which were prepared after comparing with the originals.
36.1. As per the land acquisition Award no. 67/83-84 dated 27.10.1983 and Ex.DW1/3, land measuring 6 bigha, 02 biswa of khasra no. 5min was acquired by the government among other pieces of land. DDA also proved that acquisition proceedings have attained finality since the Civil Writ Petition No.656/1983 titled as Khawaja Mohd.
Saleem & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 31.5.2004 (order is Ex.DW1/6). Against this impugned order the Special Leave Petition was also filed before the Hon'ble Supreme court of India, which was also dismissed on 11.02.2005.
36.2. Further, Kabza karyawahi (possession proceedings) dated 05.08.2004 which is Ex.DW1/4, shows that Digitally signed by possession of 24 bigha 12 biswa [including khasra no. 5 Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:20:10 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-38/53
- 39 -
min (6 bigha 2 biswa)] was taken by Land & Building department and was handed over to DDA. 36.3. Further, as per demolition report dated 04.10.2004 (exhibit DW1/2), Indian nursery (of plaintiff) and one Haji Nursery were demolished. The demolition of 04.10.2004 has been admitted by the plaintiff in his cross examination 01.06.2013 (and effect thereof has been explained above in paragraphs no. 34.1 to 34.4). 36.4. No other evidence has been led by the plaintiff to disprove/challenge possession proceedings, except for simple assertion that he remained in possession even after Kabza karyawahi (possession proceedings) dated 05.08.2004, demolition of Indian Nursery and construction of boundary wall by DDA on 04.10.2004.
Thus, the documents proved by defendant no.1/DDA have to be given a high probative value.
36.5. From the abovementioned, DDA has proved its title as well as possession over area of 6 bigha, 2 biswa of khasra no.5min (including the suit land).
37. GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.12.1986 IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT NO.2/DELHI WAKF BOARD - EX.DW2/5 - EX.DW2/5 is a gazette notification dated 22.12.1986 which corrects a previous notification dated 21.10.1982 and substitutes that "Village Ladha Sarai Khasra No.5 Mosque and graveyard within area of 15 Biswas", in place of "Khasra No.5-M measuring 9 biswas".
37.1. Therefore, as per Exhibit DW2/5, the area of land placed at disposal of Delhi wakf Board is only 15 biswas Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:20:16 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-39/53
- 40 -
of khasra no.5. This amounts to only 2250 square yards (assuming 1 biswa = 150 square yards approximately). Therefore, the defendant no.2/DWB itself did not have any right to either "allow" plaintiff to occupy or give on rent an area of "3208 square yards" to the plaintiff. Therefore, the whole case of plaintiff that entire suit land belongs to defendant no.2/DWB also stands negated. Further, the case attempted to be set up by defendant no.2/DWB as well as the testimony of DW-02 (Mohd. Younus Khan/Witness of Delhi Wakf Board) that "Delhi Wakf Board is the owner of the land about 6 bigha 17 biswa, falling in Khasra no.5, in Village Ladha Sarai"
stands rejected as unsubstantiated and baseless. 37.2. Further, the rent agreement (even though only for 11 months and executed in October, 2005 - when the plaintiff was already out of possession of suit land) could not have created any right or interest of the plaintiff over the suit land since DWB itself did not have title over "3208 square yards" of land.
37.3. As a consequence of abovementioned, the plaintiff's alleged "occupation/possession" over the suit land (alleged to be measuring 3208 square yards) stands proved as illegal possession and an encroachment over government land, on this ground as well. 37.4. The defendant no.2/Delhi wakf board as well as the plaintiff have also relied on the documents placed on record by second witness of defendant no.2/DWB - Mohammed Aarif, Lower Division Clerk of Delhi Wakf Digitally Board. He placed on record Ex.DW-2/2 which is a letter signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:20:36 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-40/53
- 41 -
dated 05.03.2007; Ex.DW-2/3 which is copy of proposed corrigendum dated 05.03.2007; Ex.DW-2/4 which is a letter dated 25.07.2007 and Ex.DW-2/5 which is copy of khatoni. These documents are described and dealt with below:
i. Exhibit DW-2/2 is letter dated 05.03.2007 written by Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Wakf Board to the Deputy Secretary (GAD/Co-ordination), Govt. of NCT of Delhi requesting for publishing the proposed corrigendum of a Gazette Notification. ii. Exhibit DW-2/3 is the proposed corrigendum which was sent along with Exhibit DW-2/2. This proposed corrigendum mentions the area of "6 bigha 17 biswa" to be the land of delhi wakf board. iii. Exhibit DW-2/4 is another letter dated 25.07.2007 from Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Wakf Board addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate-II (HQ), Office of the Divisional Commissioner, 5-Sham Nath Marg, Delhi requesting to get the corrigendum published.
iv. The documents Exhibit DW-2/2, Exhibit DW-2/3 and Exhibit DW-2/4 do not have any evidentiary to show any right or title of Defendant no.2 over entire 6 bigha 17 biswa of Khasra no.5 since the proposed corrigendum has not been notified/published in the Gazette till date despite passing of more than 18 years from the date of Digitally signed by request of Delhi Wakf Board.
Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01 v. At present, only the last notified gazette, i.e., Gazette 17:20:40 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-41/53
- 42 -
notification dated 22.12.1986 - Exhibit DW2/5 - can be considered, which notifies only 15 biswa (2250 square yards) of khasra no.5 as belonging to the Delhi Wakf Board.
vi. Lastly, the Ex.DW-2/5 is a copy of khatoni pertaining to 6 bigha and 17 biswa of khasra no.5. This document which is only a land revenue record - also does not prove any title in favour of Delhi Wakf Board since the DDA has proved acquisition of land vide Award no. 67/83-84 dated 27.10.1983 (Exhibit DW1/3). Therefore, the value of any land revenue record prior to the land acquisition award as well as the rights of previous owners of land have been extinguished by acquisition of land by the government. At present, the land vests with the government as per award no. 67/83-84 dated 27.10.1983 (Ex.DW1/3) and physical possession of the same was taken through Kabza karyawahi (possession proceedings) dated 05.08.2004 (Ex.DW1/4).
38. NO INJUNCTION AGAINST TRUE OWNER - In its Written Statement DDA also averred that after demolition proceedings, DDA constructed the boundary wall for protection and maintenance of land; and that the plaintiff broke the boundary wall and again encroached upon the land in dispute by putting some nursery equipment and plants. 38.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, the defendant no.1/DDA has proved its title and possession over area of Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
6 bigha, 2 biswa of khasra no.5min (including the suit 2025.11.01 17:20:47 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-42/53
- 43 -
land), as well as the dispossession of the plaintiff (by proving demolition of 'Indian Nursery' and construction of a boundary wall). As explained above, if plaintiff is claiming occupation/possession of any part of khasra no.5, after admitting demolition and construction of boundary wall by DDA (and consequently, dispossession), that can only be explained as further illegal encroachment on government land by disturbing/breaking the boundary wall constructed by DDA, as averred by DDA in its WS. Thus, even if it is assumed that plaintiff is in occupation/possession, such possession is neither legal nor settled possession and is, in fact, an encroachment on government land.
38.2. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to any protection or equitable relief of injunction from this court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Premji Ratansey v. Union of India2 where it has been held that "it is equally settled law that injunction would not be issued against the true owner. Therefore, the courts below have rightly rejected the relief of declaration and injunction in favour of the petitioners who have no interest in the property. Even assuming that they had any possession, their possession is wholly unlawfully possession of a trespasser and an injunction cannot be issued in favour of a trespasser or a person who gained unlawful possession, as against the owner. Pretext of dispute of identity of the land should not be an excuse to claim injunction against true owner."
Digitally signedLalit by Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.11.01 17:20:51 +0530 (emphasis supplied).
2 1994 SCC (5) 547 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-43/53
- 44 -
38.3. In view of the abovementioned, since the plaintiff has failed to prove any right, title, interest or even legal possession, his suit must fail.
39. EVIDENCE OF DW-2 (G.S. MEENA, RECORD KEEPER, LAC SOUTH) was summoned and produced the original Award No.67/83-84 (Ex. DW-1/3) and Kabza Karvai dated 05.08.2004 (Ex. DW-1/4) and deposed that the copies on record are correct copies of the original. His testimony in cross-examination regarding not taking possession of land of Masjid Haji Ali Jaan, stands rejected as per S.139, Indian Evidence Act, 18723 since DW2/G.S. Meena only produced the summoned record and he could not have been cross-
examined as a witness.
40. NON-ACQUISITION OF MASJID HAJI ALI JAAN AND ITS SURROUNDING LAND - It has been testified by DW-1 (Jai Prakash, Patwari) of DDA that Majid Haji Ali Jaan was neither acquired nor taken possession of. The area of Masjid Ali Jaan was testified to be 15 biswas. He also admitted that the mosque and the nursery of plaintiff have not been demarcated. It is also admitted that there is no demarcation report of khasra no.5 to show how much area is occupied by whom. This aspect of non-acquisition and not taking possession of Masjid Haji Ali Jaan and its surrounding land Digitally signed by was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for plaintiff, in Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.11.01 17:20:56 +0530 3 S. 139. Cross-examination of person called to produce a document - A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.
Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-44/53
- 45 -
his final arguments.
40.1. However, the fact of non-acquisition and that possession of Masjid Haji Ali Jaan and its surrounding land was not taken, does not help plaintiff's case in any way. The fact that Masjid Haji Ali Jaan and its surrounding land was neither acquired nor taken possession of can be simply explained from the evidence proved in this way - the area of entire Khasra no. 5 is 6 bigha 17 biswa; out of this, the government has acquired 6 bigha 2 biswa vide Award no. 67/83-84 dated 27.10.1983 as Exhibit DW1/3 and the remaining 15 biswa (which was neither acquired nor taken possession of) belongs to the defendant no.2/DWB, as per Gazette notification dated 22.12.1986 (Exhibit DW2/5). There is no claim made by either the plaintiff or defendant no.2/DWB that Majid Haji Ali Jaan and its surrounding land is situated outside 15 biswas belonging to the Delhi Wakf Board. 40.2. The lack of demarcation in khasra no.5 also does not help plaintiff in any way - in fact - it only defeats the case of the plaintiff. In absence of demarcation, the plaintiff failed to prove that he is in occupation/possession of land exclusively belonging to defendant no.2/DWB. The area of suit land has already been shown to be exceeding the land actually belonging to defendant no.2/DWB.
41. ADMISSION QUA POSSESSION OF PLAINTIFF BY WITNESS Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar DW1 OF DDA DOES NOT HELP PLAINTIFF'S CASE - The Kumar Date:
2025.11.01 witness DW-1 (Jai Prakash, Patwari) of DDA testified in his 17:21:01 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-45/53
- 46 -
cross dated 01.05.2017 that "it is correct that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property due to court's status quo order. Plaintiff is in possession of area measuring 3200 sq yards approximately". This admission can be explained as - firstly, as also admitted by him, the witness did not have any personal knowledge of the facts and was deposing on the basis of record; secondly, as already explained above, even if plaintiff is in occupation/possession of any part of khasra no.5, after admitting demolition and construction of boundary wall by DDA (and consequently, dispossession), that can only be explained as further illegal encroachment on government land by disturbing/breaking the boundary wall constructed by DDA. Thus, plaintiff's occupation/possession is neither legal nor settled possession and is, in fact, an encroachment on government land. That only makes his possession illegal.
Issue wise findings:-
42. In view of above discussion and observations, the issues framed in the present case are decided as follows:
43.Issue No. 1 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? The onus of proof was on the plaintiff to establish lawful possession over a clearly identifiable portion of land at the time of filing the suit and to show a threat of illegal dispossession by the defendants, especially Defendant no.1/DDA. The plaintiff, through his own evidence, admitted that the land was vacant when he first occupied it and that no written permission from the defendant no.2/Delhi Wakf Board existed at that time. His Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:21:06 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-46/53
- 47 -
claim of tenancy is based solely on the rent agreement for 11 months dated 06.10.2005 (Ex. PW-1/DX7) and rent receipts for June-September 2005 (Ex. PW-1/2) -- both of which are subsequent to the DDA's taking of possession on 05.08.2004 and the demolition on 04.10.2004, as proved through the Kabza Karvai (Ex. DW-1/4) and demolition report dated 04.10.2004 (exhibit DW1/2) and admitted by the plaintiff himself (as explained above). 43.1. The plaintiff's own letter dated 04.08.2004 (Ex. PW-
1/DX6) written to the Minister of Urban Development, seeking time to vacate the land, clearly acknowledges that he was under a notice from DDA to vacate. Such an admission destroys his claim of settled possession and shows his lack of any right, title or interest and that any possession, if at all, was illegal and unauthorised. 43.2. The site plan (Ex. PW-1/1) has been rejected as baseless and unproved; no demarcation report or survey identifies the land claimed by the plaintiff. The suit land (measuring 3208 sq. yards) claimed by the plaintiff to be under his occupation/possession exceeds the land over which defendant no.2/DWB had a legal title, i.e., only 2250 sq. yards.
43.3. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove lawful or settled possession, and the evidence shows that the land was Government-acquired and in DDA's possession. In such circumstances, a decree of permanent injunction cannot be granted against the true owner or statutory authority.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit 43.4. Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff. Plaintiff Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:21:10 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-47/53
- 48 -
is not entitled to a decree of permanent injunction.
44. Issue no. 2 is "Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of notice u/s. 52B of DD Act?". The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no.1/DDA. DDA had raised a preliminary objection that the suit is barred for want of mandatory notice under Section 53-B of the DD Act, which requires prior notice before institution of any suit against DDA. The plaintiff did not plead or prove that such notice was ever served.
44.1. In the present case, though the plaintiff did not comply with Section 53-B, DD Act, the suit has already been adjudicated on merits, and the finding on maintainability for want of notice becomes moot. Therefore, while technically there was non-compliance, the suit has been decided on merits, and dismissal cannot be solely on this procedural ground. (See - judgement of Hon'ble High court of Delhi in Khosla Medical Institute v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr.4) 44.2. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of defendant no.1/DDA only to the extent that no notice was proved, but the suit is not liable to be dismissed solely on this ground. Non-service of statutory notice does not affect the merits since the plaintiff's claim has failed on substantive grounds.
45. Issue no. 3 is "Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to Digitally signed by file the present suit? OPD". The onus to prove this issue was Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01 17:21:17 +0530 4 Khosla Medical Institute v. Delhi Development Authority and Anr. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/005237 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-48/53
- 49 -
on the defendant no.1/DDA. To have locus standi, the plaintiff must demonstrate an existing legal or possessory right over the property. The evidence led by defendant no.1/DDA and even plaintiff's own case shows that the plaintiff was never a lawful occupant of the Government- acquired land. The contention related to rent agreement and ownership of Delhi Wakf Board has already been discussed and decided above.
45.1. The plaintiff's possession, if any, was at best unauthorised, and as held by the Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India5, an encroacher or trespasser cannot seek injunction against the true owner or statutory authority. Since the plaintiff has not shown any legally enforceable right or tenancy existing prior to DDA's possession, he lacked locus standi to file and maintain the present suit. Accordingly, issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the defendant no.1 and defendants 3 to 6 and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit.
46. Issue no. 4 is "Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present matter? OPD". The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no.1/DDA. DDA has not shown any statutory bar excluding the jurisdiction of this Civil Court to entertain a claim for injunction. The plaintiff merely sought protection of possession. This issue was not argued by DDA in its final arguments. Hence, while the suit fails on facts, there is no legal bar to jurisdiction of this Court to try the Digitally signed by matter. Issue No. 4 is decided against the defendants; this Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.11.01 17:21:22 +0530 5 (1994) 5 SCC 547.
Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-49/53
- 50 -
Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
47. Issue no. 5 is "Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? OPD". The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no.1/DDA. DDA has not shown any earlier judgment in which same matter has been decided between the same parties. No evidence was led on this issue. No arguments were made by DDA on this issue. Thus, DDA has not discharged the onus placed on it. Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is decided against the defendant no.1; the suit is not barred by res judicata.
48. Issue no. 6 is "Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action?". The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant no.1/DDA. A cause of action arises when the plaintiff alleges a legal injury or apprehended injury to an existing right.6 In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to establish any legal right, title or tenancy over the suit land, and his possession was unauthorised. Since he has no enforceable right to protect, the claim of any illegal threat or dispossession does not constitute a valid cause of action. The plaintiff's pleadings are based on false assumption of tenancy and ownership of Delhi Wakf Board over the suit land, both of which stand disproved. Hence, issue No. 6 is decided in favour of the defendants; the suit was filed without any valid cause of action.
6 As observed by Hon'ble Justice Arijit Pasayat in Y.A. Ajit v. Sofana Ajit (AIR 2007 SC 3151) as - "In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the Digitally infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the proceeding including not only the signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 alleged infraction, but also the infraction coupled with the right itself." 17:21:27 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-50/53
- 51 -
49. Collusion - Defendant no.1/DDA as well as defendants no.3 to 6 alleged collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no.2/Delhi Wakf Board whereby a "sham and bogus" rent agreement was executed to grab the government land. It is pertinent to note that collusion between the plaintiff and the Delhi Wakf Board cannot be entirely ruled out. It is significant that the plaintiff was not subjected to any cross-
examination on behalf of the Delhi Wakf Board, although the Board, in its written statement, had not only alleged the plaintiff to be an illegal entrant/encroacher on its land but also prayed for dismissal of the suit. Moreover, the rent agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was executed in October 2005, i.e., after the demolition of the nursery and after DDA had already taken possession of the acquired land in August and October 2004. The rent agreement also purported to cover an area larger than that over which the Wakf Board held any legal title, as the record shows that only 15 biswas (or 2250 sq. yards) out of Khasra No. 5 were notified as Wakf property, while possession of the remaining portion of 6 bigha 2 biswa had already been taken over by DDA and a boundary wall constructed thereafter. These circumstances create a strong inference that the rent agreement was not a genuine act of tenancy, but rather a ex post facto attempt to give legitimacy to an otherwise unlawful occupation of the plaintiff.
50. Additional Important observation - By way of present suit, it appears that the plaintiff has, in effect, agitated an underlying dispute of ownership, demarcation and possession Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar between the defendant no.1/Delhi Development Authority Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:21:32 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-51/53
- 52 -
(DDA) and the defendant no.2/Delhi Wakf Board (DWB) in relation to the larger tract of land comprising Khasra No. 5, Village Ladha Sarai. However, it must be made clear that this Court did adjudicate upon, nor did it have the occasion to determine, nor does it have jurisdiction to determine, the title or ownership and possession of the land as between DDA and DWB. The scope of the present proceedings was confined solely to examining whether the plaintiff himself has established any lawful right, tenancy, or settled possession over the portion of land he claims to occupy, and whether such possession, if any, warrants protection by way of an injunction. Any observations made in this judgment touching upon the nature or extent of the respective claims of DDA or DWB are, therefore, incidental and confined to the limited purpose of assessing the plaintiff's alleged possession and rights, and shall not be construed as a determination of title or proprietary rights between DDA and DWB.
Conclusion
51. The plaintiff has not discharged the onus of proof required for a decree of permanent injunction. The evidence establishes that DDA had a land acquisition award in its favour, it had taken physical possession in August 2004 and that demolition of unauthorised structures (Indian Nursery) occurred. The rent agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was executed later and for a limited period; Delhi Wakf Board's proved rights are confined to a smaller notified area. These factors taken together lead to dismissal of the plaintiff's case. Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.11.01 17:21:36 +0530 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-52/53
- 53 -
Relief
52. All substantive issues are decided against the plaintiff. He has failed to prove lawful possession, tenancy, or any existing legal right, and the suit is therefore dismissed on merits.
Cost
53. The plaintiff is directed to pay Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) as costs of the suit to the defendant no.1/DDA within 1 month from the date of this judgment.
54. Decree sheet to be prepared accordingly.
55. Order of interim injunction against DDA dated 06.11.2004 stands vacated.
56. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
57. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally signedLalit by Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 17:21:42 2025.11.01 (This judgment contains 53 +0530 pages and each page has been (LALIT KUMAR) signed by the undersigned) Civil Judge-02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open Court on 31.10.2025 Suit No. 11334/2016 Mohd. Yunus Khan. vs. DDA & Ors. Page-53/53