Delhi High Court
Harminder Kaur vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 October, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
Bench: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 20.10.2010
+ R.S.A.No.62/1998 & C.M.Appl.2235/1998
HARMINDER KAUR ...........Appellant
Through: None.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..........Respondent
Through: Ms.Priyanka Kathuria for
Ms.Sangeeta Chandra,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 20.4.1998 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 8.12.1989 thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff Harminder Kaur.
2. The plaintiff had purchased 100 sq.yds. of land in Mahabir Nagar vide a sale deed dated 24.7.1972. As per her version, she had constructed a house bearing No.WZ.T.57 thereon which was assessed to house tax. On 25.3.1979 some officials of the DDA had threatened to demolish her house. Present suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff as no show cause notice/demolition notice had been served upon her prior to the aforenoted threat.
3. The trial judge had framed five issues. The trial judge has held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that she was in possession of the suit property on 21.7.1973; the suit land vests in RSA No.62/1998 Page 1 of 4 the DDA; the possession of the plaintiff is that of a trespasser. She was not entitled to any relief.
4. The first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 20.4.1998 had confirmed this finding. It was reiterated that the superstructure of the disputed land had stood acquired vide Award No.20/73-74 and physical possession was taken over by the Land & Building Department on 21.7.1973 and 3.8.1974. After demolition of the superstructure the land was placed at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act vide notifications dated 25.9.74 and 2.12.74. The land vested with the government.
5. This is a second appeal. It was admitted on 5.2.1999. Status quo of the property had been ordered to be maintained. Till date substantial question of law has not yet been formulated. Counsel for the appellant has chosen not to appear on the last two dates i.e. 21.9.2010 & 29.9.2010. The counsel for the DDA had been directed by this court to get suit property inspected to determine its status. Counsel for DDA has filed the affidavit of Mr.S.N.Gupta, Director (Land Management), DDA wherein it is stated that the Patwari has inspected the site. The site inspection has revealed that there is no property existing by the no.WZ-T-57 in Mahabir Nagar, New Delhi and no such property number exists anywhere near Khasra No.52, Village Nangli Jalib. Local enquiry has also confirmed that there is no 'T Block' in the entire Mahabir Nagar. On affidavit it is reiterated that the land stood acquired by an Award and physical possession of the same was handed over to the DDA on 21.7.73 and of the remaining land on 3.8.74 which was placed at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act and as such land now vests with the DDA.
RSA No.62/1998 Page 2 of 4
6. The substantial questions of law formulated in the body of appeal read as follows:
(i) Whether out of more than 2000 houses, situated in the colony which are the subject matter of the Award, only the house of appellant can be demolished?
(ii) Whether the respondent can deprive the appellant from her property without paying compensation in respect of the land & the super-structure existing on the said land?
(iii) What is the effect of regularization of the colony by the M.C.D. and providing of all the civic amenities in the said colony?
(iv) Whether the action of the respondent in demolishing the property of the appellant without taking any action against various other houses situated in the said colony which are also the subject matter of the same award, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
(v) Whether the respondent can deprive the appellant from his property without paying compensation?
(vi) Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse and against the evidence available on the record which clearly show that the appellant has constructed the house in 1972 and has been paying property tax of the said property and has been living in the said property along with her family members?
(vii) What is the effect of levying the development charges of the said plot, by the D.D.A. and in spite of the receipt of the development charges, whether the respondent can still allege that the possession of the said plot was taken by them on the basis of alleged award, which was issued after the purchase of the plot in dispute by appellant? And whether the appellant can be deprived of her property in vilation of Article 300.A of the Constitution of India?
(viii) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is not in accordance with law, which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant?
(ix) Whether the lower appellate court has failed to consider the application of the appellant under order 6 rule 17 CPC in right perspective manner and dismissed the same arbitrarily?
7. These are all questions of fact. Second appellate court is not a third fact finding court. Admittedly, as per questions of law formulated by the appellant the suit property had stood acquired by an Award. The question as to whether she had received adequate compensation or not cannot be gone into by this court. Even otherwise, none has appeared for the appellant to assist it. RSA No.62/1998 Page 3 of 4 No question of law much less any substantial question of law has arisen in this case. Appeal as also the pending application is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 20, 2010 rb RSA No.62/1998 Page 4 of 4