Delhi District Court
C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) Janak Puri ... vs The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone on 7 February, 2026
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner,
West Zone
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030006032013
CS SCJ/609210/2016
DLWT030006032013
C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI
Residents Welfare Association (Regd.)
C-3/26, Janak Puri
New Delhi-58
........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone
South Delhi Municipal Corporation
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-27
2. VICE CHAIRMAN
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi-23
3. LIC Employees Co-Op Group Housing Society Ltd.
C-3A76A, JANAKPURI
NEW DELHI-58
......DEFENDANTS Digitally
signed by
VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:19:44
PAGE 1/36 07.02.2026 +0530
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner,
West Zone
Date of Institution : 11.07.2013
Date of Judgment : 07.02.2026
SUIT FOR PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment of mine shall decide the present suit filed by plaintiff society seeking suit for permanent & mandatory injunction. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of Mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 1/MCD to construct the boundary wall between C-3A Block and C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058 and to open the closed gate adjoining to Flat no. 60 of C-3A Block, Jankapuri on Pankha Road, New Delhi to facilitate the entry/exit of vehicles and residents through this gate. Further Mandatory injunction has been sought directing the defendant no. 2/DDA to shift the boundary wall of unerected green belt area adjacent to rainy water drain (now covered) and to restrain the residents of C-3A Flats from misusing the green belt area for entry/exit and parking of their vehicles etc. through C-3Block (pvt. Const.) Janakpuri, New Delhi. Further permanent injunction has been sought against the defendant no. 3, its agents, associates etc. and other residents of C-3A Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi, not to restrain the MCD from erection of boundary/ demarcation wall in C-3A Flats and C-3 Block (pvt. Const.), Janakpuri, New Delhi and not to restrain DDA from shifting of VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by PAGE 2/36 07.02.2026 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 17:19:52 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone boundary wall of unerected green belt area adjacent to rainy water drain and to keep its gate adjacent to Flat no. 60 of C-3A Block on Pankha Road (being kept closed permanently) open for entry/ exist of residents and their vehicles and lastly for restraining them from misusing the green belt area for parking of their vehicles etc. VERSION OF PLAINTIFF:-
2. As per the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Resident Welfare Association, a registered body representing residents of C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058. Shri D.K. Mittal is its President, Dr. PM Rai is its General Secretary. It has other office bearers. It has its own bye laws and regulations approved by the Registrar of Societies. Its Governing Body comprising of various members meets at a regular interval to look into the activities for the welfare of the residents of the block. That the office bearers and Managing Committee of the plaintiff's Resident Welfare Association are elected by the residents of the block Annual Accounts are duly approved and adopted by the members at the Annual General Meeting. That the C-3A, MIG Flats and C-3 Single Storey flats in Janak Puri were constructed by DDA providing specific entry / exit gates for its residents / vehicles in these blocks with clear cut demarcation of boundary wall between these flats and VIVEK C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.), Janak Puri New Delhi. KUMAR AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.02.07 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:20:00 +0530 PAGE 3/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone 2.1. It is stated that the boundary wall between these C-3A flats and C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) Janak Puri was constructed with grill by DDA thereon adjoining to erstwhile uncovered nallah which is clear cut demarcation between the aforesaid flats and C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.), Janak Puri, New Delhi. That the boundary wall is still visible and existing at certain points with grill thereon though few of the flat owners had encroached upon pavements in front of their flats and constructed rooms upto original boundary wall which were demolished by MCD as per the orders of the Chairman, Public Grievance Commission, Govt of NCT of Delhi and the Status Report dated 3rd August, 2011 in this regard was filed by MCD before the Public Grievance Commission. However, the flat owners have again encroached upon the area. That the Defendant no.2, Delhi Development Authority had erected boundary wall of Green Belt Area of C-3 Block, (Pvt. Const.), Janak Puri, New Delhi but left a certain portion unerected in front of flat nos. 60 to 66 of C-3A Block Janak Puri adjacent to rainy water drain (now covered) which comes under C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) Janak Puri, New Delhi is being misused by aforesaid flat owners for parking of their vehicles. That unerected portion of green belt has facilitated entry / exit of aforesaid flat owners and their vehicles through C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.), Janak Puri, New Delhi and are using this unerected Green Belt Area for the purposes of their vehicles which not only is incorrect but also tantamount to change of land use in clear cut violations of provisions of DDA, Master Plan. That as per Zonal Development Plan for Zone Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL PAGE 4/36 07.02.2026 2026.02.07 17:20:12 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone G (West Delhi), permissibility of activities and development in Green Belt are to be in accordance with the provisions stipulated in the Master Plan. Using any portion of Green Belt for parking of vehicles is not only incorrect but also illegal.
2.2. It is stated that the Defendant no.2, DDA through its Executive Engineer had vide its letter dated 19th March, 2007 to Executive Engineer of MCD of Defendant no. 1 regarding removal of encroachment from Green Belt in front of DDA Flats at Block C-3A, Janak Puri, New Delhi and the contents of the same are as under:
The above said pocket was constructed and handed to the allottees long back. It has been seen that the residents of the above said flats have extended their flats towards green belt of existing nalha being constructed by MCD. The MCD staff had demolished a portion of extension which was covering in alignment of drainage. "Fencing of park was demolished for construction of drain by MCD, now to restore the park in original condition DDA need MCD's help for removing encroachment so that a proper boundary wall will be constructed along s.w drain at proper location to avoid encroachment by the residents of pocket C-3A Janakpuri."
2.3. It is further submitted that the plaintiff being aggrieved by the misuse of its Green Belt Area, has raised this issue with the Defendant no. 2 a number of times but no action has been taken by DDA and the plaintiff was shocked when it came to know from the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK AGARWAL KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 5/36 07.02.2026 2026.02.07
17:20:23
+0530
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone letter dated 20th May, 2010 sent by the Director (M & M) DDA that the aforesaid portion of Green Belt Area of C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) Janak Puri, New Delhi opposite to Flat Nos.60 to 66 of C-3A Block has been left unerected as per request of its RWA endorsed by area M.P. Shri Mahabal Mishra. This is as per letter dated 20th May, 2010 from Shri Virender Bhatia, Director (MM) to Plaintiff's earlier President Shri Irvin Chugh. The contents of the aforesaid letter are as under:
Para No.6 "The portion of green belt in front of H.No. 60 to 66A, Pocket C-3A Block has been left unerected as per request of RWA, C-3A and endorsed by Area M.P Shri Mahabal Mishra "
2.4. It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 is required to ensure land use of its properties as prescribed / approved in its original plans and cannot change the same at the whims and fancies of few individuals or on MP's recommendations. The deviation made by defendant no.2 is not only incorrect but also unjustified and illegal. That there are 7 Resident Welfare Associations operating in C-3A flats and LIC Employees CGHS Association forms a small fragment of a few flat owners of this block. As such neither this Association nor area MP's endorsement can legalise illegal act of permitting change of land use / conversion and transfer of this Green Belt Area of C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.), Janak Puri, New Delhi for misuse as Parking lot for vehicles for flat owners of C-3A block. That Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 6/36 07.02.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:20:30 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone the defendant no.2 has provided another opening in Green Belt Area of C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) behind Lawrence Public School, from MIG fiats side adjacent to covered nallah whereas no such open space has been provided / exist in the original site plan of DDA This opening has, therefore, become another security hazard for the residents of C-3 Block (Pvt.Const) Janak Puri, New Delhi from which culprits can escape easily after committing crime in the block. That despite repeated requests of plaintiff, no concrete steps have been taken and on the contrary attempts have been made to provide entry gate in Green Belt Area behind Lawrence Public School from C-3A MIG Flats under political pressure which is not only unjustified but also illegal and the same is clearly a violation of DDA Site Plan. That the above act of officials of defendant no.2 in allowing / encouraging misuse of Green Belt Area of C-3 Block (Pvt. Const) Janak Puri, New Delhi for entry / exit and parking of vehicles of flat owners of C-3A Block is thus a clear violation of land use of Green Belt Area stipulated in DDA Master Plan Entry / exit points in Local Site Plan of these C-3A flat owners exist in their Block itself and as such entry / exit of these flat owner of C-3A Block and their vehicles through C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) Janak Puri, New Delhi is even otherwise a big security hazard for residents of C-3 Block (Pvt.Const.) Janak Puri, New Delhi and has resulted in incidents of chain snatching and thefts as well as clashes with the security / staff / residents during entry of their vehicles at odd hours. That there is a gate on Pankna Road on pavement in front of aforesaid flats adjoining Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 7/36 07.02.2026 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:20:37 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone to rainy water drain on which flats, (60 to 66) of C-3A Block are situated. These flat owners have closed it by making encroachments on the pavement Having closed this gate, these flat owners have started using the unerected portion of green belt area of C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) Janak Puri, New Delhi By doing this, they are jeopardizing the security of C-3 Block (Pvt. Const.) residents. That after de-notification, it is the duty of Defendant no.1, MCD to construct original boundary wall of C-3A MIG Flats which is actual demarcation between these two blocks adjacent to covered Nallah to prevent use of covered Nallah and adjoining green belt area for parking of their vehicles and entry /exit of these flat owners from C-3 Block (Pvt. Const). That the officials of defendant no.1, whenever approached in the past have been hesitating to demolish unauthorized encroachment done by occupants of C-3A Block Flat Nos. 61 to 66 and 72 to 78, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 on the pretext that the same has been approved / regularized by DDA, hence it cannot be demolished. DDA has, however, in its reply to the plaintiff's application has clarified vide its letter dated 7th June, 2010 that C-3A, MIG Flats, Janak Puri is notified area and its all building activities are being looked after by MCD. It has further been clarified in the said letter that as per record available, no such approval / regularization of construction in the said flats has been given by DDA Housing Enforcement Unit. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2026.02.07
17:20:44 +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 8/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone 2.5. It is further submitted that as is evident from aforesaid DDA letter that C-3A is de-notified Area and as such MCD is competent authority and duty bound to take appropriate steps to construct boundary wall adjacent to Rainy Water Drain (Now covered) as per original DDA site plan. The much needed action of MCD will in itself check unauthorized Entry / Exit of these C-3A Flat owners through C-3 Block Janak Puri, New Delhi and illegal conversion / utilization of it Green Belt Area in parking lot of their vehicles. That the plaintiff being aggrieved by the inaction of the defendant no.2 had submitted a petition to the Chairman Public Grievance Commission, Govt of NCT of Delhi, who after considering the submissions made by the plaintiff and defendant directed vide order dated 22nd June, 2011 that the Deputy Commissioner, West Zone, MCD shall ensure that the work of construction of boundary wall will be expeditiously initiated and completed and detailed status report shall be filed in the next date of hearing which was fixed for 23 August, 2011. That in the next date of hearing, the defendant no.2, MCD. through its Deputy Commissioner (West Zone) submitted a reply vide letter dated 3rd August, 2011 to the Chairman, Public Grievance Commission, Govt of NCT of Delhi and stated that the matter had been before the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi who had given order that no wall to be erected. This direction was issued on 7th December, 2008. In view of the same, Public Grievance Commission observed that there are directions from Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi hence it cannot intervene. That it is pertinent to Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR PAGE 9/36 07.02.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:20:50 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone note that the direction issued by Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi as Chairman of Delhi Development authority is not only incorrect but against the law. That Green Belt Area cannot be used for parking of vehicles. The work of construction of boundary wall cannot be stopped by passing a order which has no force of law. The boundary wall has been provided in the Master Plan approved by the Delhi Development Authority and the same cannot be stopped to be constructed by just making an order on the requests of few flat owners who have presented distorted facts before the Hon'ble Lt. Governor. The order which affects the rights of residents of plaintiff's block cannot be passed without giving an opportunity of being heard. While issuing the direction, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi has not followed the principles of natural Justice and the same has been passed by hearing the views of dane party alone and the same is perverse and illegal. That the plaintiff also made a petition to the Hon'ble Lt Governor of Delhi vide letter dated 6th September 2011 regarding unjust and unfair order issued by him in relation to non erection of wall on the basis of distorted facts given by the defendant no.3. The Plaintiff submitted the factual position and also made repeated requests to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi for personal meeting to clarify the issue but the requests made by the plaintiff were not acceded to. That in view of the rising crimes, it has become inevitable that the work of construction of boundary wall may be completed by the Defendant no.1 and also erection of the unerected portion of green belt by defendant no. 2 at the earliest so that the Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 10/36 07.02.2026 2026.02.07
17:20:57
+0530
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone residents of the plaintiff's block may not have to suffer at the hands of anti social elements and hence this Hon'ble Court has got the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the present suit.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT No. 1:-
3. As per the written statement filed by defendant no. 1, the preliminary objections have been taken that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 477/478 of the D.M.C. Act, 1957 for want of service of statutory notice upon the answering defendant and as such the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That the present suit as filed by the plaintiff is also legally not maintainable in the present form and manner as the Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation is the head of the SDMC and as settled proposition of law the Corporation can sue or be sued through its Commissioner, while the present suit has been filed against Deputy Commissioner, hence the suit is not maintainable and deserves for outright dismissal. That the plaintiff has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has not stated the true facts and suppressed the true material facts from this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the plaintiff has wrongly and falsely dragged the answering defendant in the present suit. It is submitted that the dispute in the present matter was raised by the parties before the Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi and the Hon'ble Lt. Governor in this particular case in the year 2008 issued the directions "This was Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 11/36 07.02.2026 2026.02.07
17:21:04
+0530
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone discussed in the presence of Addl.Secy. (AKA). No wall to be erected. X' on page 2-3 approved." Thereafter when the matter was raised by the concerned parties before the Public Grievances Commission, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Chairman, Public Grievances Commission in its order dated 24.8.2011 further observed and held that since there are directions from Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi and as such the PGC cannot intervene and the said orders are binding on PGC. The said order dated 24.8.2011 was passed by the PGC in presence of the plaintiff's President Shri D.K.Mittal, and defendant no.3's President Shri Raj Yadav and also authorized officer of the defendant no.1. It is further submitted the encroachment in the above said flats have been removed by the answering defendants and the photographs of the action taken were already placed before the Chairman, PGC. Thus the present suit as filed by the plaintiff against the answering defendant is not maintainable and deserves for dismissal. That the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed in view of provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for want of cause of action qua the answering defendant, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3.1. In reply on merits, it is submitted that the answering defendant's predecessor M.C.D. had in compliance with the orders of the PGC, removed / demolished the encroachment. However, it has already been submitted that the answering defendant has complied with the directions of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor as well as the orders Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 12/36 07.02.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:21:10 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone of the Id. Public Grievance Commission and removed/demolished the encroachment and as such the charges as made against the answering defendant are denied in toto. It is submitted that the answering defendant brought all the factual position before the Chairman, Public Grievance Commission, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as well the direction dated 7th December, 2008 of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and as such the PGC, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, also declined in its order to intervene in the matter as the directions of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor are binding upon the PGC. It is submitted that the answering defendant has always acted in accordance with the laid down procedure and norms as well as the policy and the answering defendant shall also comply with all the directions and orders of this Hon'ble Court as may be passed by this Hon'ble Court in the present matter. So far as the grievances as aroused by the plaintiff, the answering defendant has brought the factual position also before the Chairman, PGC as submitted above. All the averments are false, frivolous, misconceived and contrary to the facts.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT No. 2:-
4. As per the written statement of defendant no. 2 / DDA, the preliminary objections have been taken that the plaintiff has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands and had such suppressed some material facts which are very vital for the proper adjudication of the case and as such on this ground alone the suit of Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 13/36 07.02.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:21:17 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone the plaintiff is desired to be dismissed. That no cause of action had ever accrued against the answering defendant DDA and in favour of the plaintiff and as such the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. That all the services like roads, Storm Water Drains, Cement Concrete paths of Block C-3A, have long back stands transferred to erstwhile MCD, now South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Hence encroachment on pavement, courtyard etc falls under their jurisdiction.
4.1. In reply on merits, the averments of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is further submitted that all the services like roads, Storm Water Drains, Cement Concrete paths of Block C-3A, have long back stands transferred to erstwhile MCD, now South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Hence encroachment on pavement, courtyard etc falls under their jurisdiction. It is submitted that efforts have been made to erect the boundary wall where there is a gap between C-3 & C-3A Block at Janakpuri.
However, it was averted by the local residents with vehement protest, when the matter was taken over by Hon'ble L.G, Delhi. It was directed by the Hon'ble L.G, Delhi the Ex-Officio Chairman of Defendant No-2/DDA that "No wall is to be erected" to stop the across movement of residents. Moreover, the shifting of the boundary wall of the path upto cover the Storm Water Drain will be taken up. It is submitted that the defendant No-2/DDA hasd made fts stand clear by letter dt 7/06/2010 that the locality of C-3A Janakpuri is denotified Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 14/36 07.02.2026 2026.02.07
17:21:25
+0530
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone area, hence all the building activities falls under the jurisdiction of MCD. Moreover there is no relaxation as alleged by the residents för regularization by the housing unit of DDA. It is submitted that it is the order of the Hon'ble LG, the Ex-Officio Chairman of the defendant No-2, who had directed DDA not to jeopardize the entry and the exit of the LIC employees, C.G.H.S Association. It is submitted that all out efforts will be made to erect the boundary wall at the gap between Block C-3 & C-3A at Janakpuri. Moreover, the shifting of the boundary wall of the path upto covende Storm Water Drain will be taken up. It is submitted that all out efforts will be made to erect the boundary wall at the gap between Block C-3 & C-3A at Janakpuri, Moreover, the shifting of the boundary wall of the path upto cover the Storm Water prain will be taken up. It is submitted that all out efforts will be made to erect the boundary wall at the gap between Block C-3 & C-3A at Janakpuri. Moreover, the shifting of the boundary wall of the path upto covered the Storm Water Drain will be taken up.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT No. 3:-
5. As per the written statement of defendant no. 3, the preliminary objections have been taken that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. That the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has subjudice the material facts; hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Digitally
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
PAGE 15/36 07.02.2026 KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07
17:21:33
+0530
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone That the Plaintiff and answering defendant are neighbouring resident welfare associations. That in the year 1974-75 L.I.C Staff purchased through different Co-operative Group Housing Societies, D.D.A (MIG) Flats in Pankha Road Residential Scheme. The original Layout plan of DDA planning Cell supplied with conveyance deed dt. 07.06.1978 at the time of purchase depicts alongside the flats a small Service lane just after the courtyards of the flats, a Nala now covered, and an NHP (Neighbour Hood Park) also called Green belt- all this as part of C3-A Residential Scheme. Out of these flat Nos. 61ABC to 80 ABC (42 flats) are situated along the NALA. There never was any boundary wall except courtyard walls of the flats. That there is a road beyond the N.H.P which is the dividing line between C3-A and C3(Pvt. Const.) Then Lawerence Public School and Kothis of Block C3 (Pvt. Const.) are situated. That plaintiff with vested interest is misrepresenting the fact that the covered NALA and the N.H.P fall in (C3 Pvt. Const.) area whereas the NALA and the N.H.P are part and parcel of C3A Residential Scheme as per the Original Layout Plan of defendant no. 2. As such plaintiff cannot have any right on defendant no. 3s side of the road. That when there was no boundary wall in the original plan, raising a wall subsequently cannot be justified. It is incomprehensible as to why plaintiff RWA wants a wall near C3-A flats. That the C3 Kothis are far off, from Nala, and Green belt and then beyond the road. Plaintiff should not be concerned at all about the area adjacent to the flats.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:21:39 PAGE 16/36 07.02.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone 5.1. It is stated that the plaintiff cannot be granted the relief as claimed because:-
i. No such boundary wall was ever there in the original housing layout plan of DDA at the time of purchase. Raising a wall subsequently will not leave any service lane/ back lane to the flats.
ii. Such raising a wall will violate the terms of purchase and also Law of EASEMENT. The Conveyance deed of defendant no. 3 clearlymentions that the flats are given with all the Rights, Easements and Appurtenances, whatsoever to the flats.
iii. Wall will block natural light and air to the flats and also create hindrance for Ambulance and fire brigade in case of emergency.
iv. It will deprive the residents from utilizing the space on covered NALA (drain) for parking. When these MIG three storied flats were built in 1972-73 very little parking space was provided because there were few cars in those days. The number of vehicles has increased tremendously since then and parking has become a big problem.
v. The NALAS have been covered all over Delhi and are being used for parking. In Janakpuri itself covered nalas in AZA, C2C and C2D Blocks, to mention a few, are being used for parking. Nowhere any wall has been constructed to imprison the area residents.
Digitally signed by vi. It will block entry to the NHP (GREEN BELT) VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR which is a part of C3A, residential scheme. The KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 17:21:45
+0530
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 17/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone residents of C3A do need a park and depriving defendant no. 3 of the NHP use which is just in front of their houses (at 20-30 feet) by construction a wall will be a great irony and injustice.
5.2. It is further submitted that plaintiff never bothered about the NALA when it was an open drain with human excreta bloating. Plaintiff did not make any effort to get it covered. It was the answering defendant, who took up, the matter with the area councilor and defendant no. 1. It were, the C3-A residents who suffered the constant unbearable stench emanating from this nala flowing right by their court yards. Further because of foul Stench the doors and windows used to remain closed on nala side also coolers and AC's could not be used for about 20 years because they threw foul smelling air from the nala. Besides the open nala was a breading place for mosquitoes and disease. Residents of C3-A flat suffered all this and not plaintiff who's Kothis are at far off distance. That when the nala was covered, in 2007, plaintiff with a vested interest became claimants and started harping that the nala and the green belt fall in C3 area. Plaintiff started Lobbing with local DDA officials to grab the NHP and the covered nala. They mooted a plan to get a wall constructed near the flats, enclosing thereby the area of nala and green belt to be used by some vested interests, later on. That defendant no. 3 got to know the move and took up the matter with DDA at various levels, even with the V. Chairman to stall their nefarious attempt. Getting no response Defendant no. 3 represented Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 18/36 07.02.2026 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:21:54 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, with an appeal signed by about 150 residents of the flats, in 2008. After going through the representation and listening to the explanation by defendant no. 3 of the difficulties the flats residents will face because of wall, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor discussed the matter with the then Adl. Secretary Shri A.K Acharya IAS and other DDA officials and was kind enough to pass the order on 07.12.2008 to the effect that:-
No wall to be erected
Proper service lane to be provided along the flats
The space of covered nala allowed for parking
The NHP to be developed and access provided to C3-A
residents. NHP misuse to be stopped
5.3 It is submitted that originally there never was a
boundary wall and bound by Hon'ble LG's Direction, the Defendant no. 1&2 have refrained from constructing the said wall. That bent upon harassing the flat owners the C3 RWA could not digest the decision of Hon'ble Lt. Governor and goaded by sheer negative and sadist approach, they approached, the Public Grievances Commissioner on 16-06-2011 giving distorted facts far from truth even concealing the decision of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor. They also managed an Asstt. Engr. Of MCD to give a wrong statement that there was a proposal of raising the boundary wall abutting C3A flats and. For giving wrong facts, the P.G. Commissioner had even contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the A.E concerned. That the flat owners, through L.I.C Employees' Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. appeared before the P.G. Commission and Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 19/36 07.02.2026 2026.02.07
17:22:03
+0530
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner,
West Zone
placed the facts. As a result, the false complaint of Sh. D.K. Mittal of C3 block RWA was dismissed as closed on 24-08-2011, stating that the PGC cannot intervene because the directions of Hon'ble L.G are binding. That the plaintiff RWA is now taking refuge in an amended Site plan of 24-10-2008 of DDA and are demanding that a wall be constructed abutting the C3-A flats. It is submitted that the original Site plan prepared when the flats were allotted has to hold good and it cannot be amended to the detriment of the rights of flat owners. Such an action violates the terms of purchase of flats as mentioned in the Conveyance Deed. Moreover, the Hon'ble LG's directions of 7th December, 2008 supersede the earlier Amended plan of 24 th Oct, 2008 which should cease to be effective and the original plan of 1978 should hold good, in which there was no boundary wall worth the name. That there are two segments of NHP alongside our flats. In fact there are two separate NHP's -One on the BACK of Lawrence Public School and the other on the SIDE on the school. Between these two there has been a passage provided by DDA since inception to reach the nala from the road for cleaning it and removing the silt from time to time. This passage cannot be closed by erecting a wall there on the following grounds:-
(i) In case of fire this passage is the most convenient access for the fire tender to reach the flats.
(ii) There is Jal Board water pump in the NHP (green belt) which is necessary to supply water for fire fighting.Digitally signed by VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:22:13 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 20/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone
(iii) The covered nala has to be cleaned off and on and the silt and garbage has to be taken away for which the passage in question is the only entry/ exit for the MCD truck to reach the road.
(iv) There is no other passage for the residents for going to the NHP (green belt).
5.4. It is submitted that the presence of large number of vehicles in block C3-A leaves no space to move around. As such some vehicles enter and exit through the above said passage to reach the road, which is in front of flat Nos. 65-66. This road is a public road and not a monopoly of C3 (Pvt. Const.) RWA. That everybody has a right to be on the road. Parks & roads are Public facilities and C3 (Pvt. Const.) RWA cannot claim them as their personal properties. Defendant no. 3 can also use them as can the public at large.
5.5. In reply on merits, it is submitted that there never was any boundary wall at all between these blocks in the original layout plan of DDA. It is submitted that there was no boundary wall between these blocks and the NALA and the NHP are part and parcel of C3A Residential Scheme as per the Original Layout Plan of defendant no.2 only the road separates these blocks from each other. It is submitted that there was no pavement in front of flats, only open spaces on both sides of the nala which is very much intact and open. It is submitted that DDA constructed the boundary wall of NHP which is the part of original layout plan of C3A residential scheme not of C3(Pvt const.) Digitally and the residents of C3A are parking their vehicles on the covered signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 PAGE 21/36 07.02.2026 17:22:20 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone nala not on the green belt as falsely alleged by the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that the green belt (N.H.P) is well protected on all four sides by the boundary wall with grills and Prior to the present boundary wall around the green belt, there was fencing of iron mesh (jaali) which was removed in 2010 and the present boundary wall of NHP was constructed at the original place of iron mesh. It is submitted that there is no unerected portion of green belt, as there are two segments of NHP alongside C3-A flats. In fact there are two separate NHP's with separate boundary walls-One on the back of Lawrence Public School and the other on the side on the school and between these two there has been a passage provided by DDA since inception to reach the nala from the road for cleaning it and removing the silt from time to time. This passage cannot be closed by erecting a wall there. It is further submitted that when green belt is very much there then violation of land use does not arise. It is submitted that no question arises of violation of the green belt area as no vehicles is parked by any resident of C3-A flats in the green belt area as it has a high demarcated boundary wall and the flat owners only park their vehicles on the covered drain outside the boundary wall of the NHP.
It is submitted defendant No. 2 cannot deviate from the original site plan of the year 1978 issued at the time of selling the flats, when at that time NHP and Nala were part of the layout scheme of the C3A flats then defendant No. 2 has no right what so ever to deprive the residents of C3A flats of their easmentry rights. Now C3 (Pvt. Const.) Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL PAGE 22/36 07.02.2026AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:22:26 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone RWA is taking refuge in an amended Site plan of 24-10-2008 of DDA and are demanding that a wall be constructed abutting the C3A flats.
5.6. It is further stated that the Conveyance Deed mentions that flats are given with all the Rights, Easements and Appurtenances, what so ever, to flats-as per the original plan of 1978. It is submitted that there are different RWAs and housing societies operating in the C-3A flats. That every organization big or small is entitled to safeguard its interests so are the answering defendants, it is the answering defendants whose flats are situated along Nala side and are adversely impacted by the mischievous designs of C3 People and so the answering defendant has to protect the flat owners interests. It is further submitted that NHP does not belong to C3 and there is no misuse of it. It is submitted that there was narrow passage from the C-3A flats from over the Nalla upto the opening of the NHP and the opening in the NHP was very much there since last 34 years when the defendant No. 2 allotted the flats. It is submitted that there are two segments of NHP alongside the flats. In fact there are two separate NHP's. One on the back of Lawrence Public School and the other on the side of the school. Between these two there has been a passage provided by DDA since inception to reach the nala from the road for cleaning it and removing the silt from time to time. It is submitted that there is no such gate on the Pankha Road on pavement. It is submitted there never was any boundary wall as such the question of constructing it now does not arise. That defendant no. 3 submits that Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
PAGE 23/36 07.02.2026 2026.02.07
17:22:33
+0530
CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone residents of C3A have not encroached upon any public land so no question of any demolition arises as unauthorized constructions have already been removed by demolition staff which can even be seen from the photographs filed by plaintiff. That the much needed action of MCD will in itself check unauthorized Entry/ Exit of these C-3A Flat owners through C-3 Block Janak Puri, New Delhi and illegal conversion/ utilization of it Green Belt Area in parking lot of their vehicles. It is further submitted that the original layout map Dy. 1978 of C3-A, DDA flats shows that green belt exits after the Nala and is very much part of C3-A residential scheme. It is submitted that the boundary wall around the green belt (NHP) is very much there, then it is not probable for anyone to park his car inside the green belt and this fact of misuse of green belt can be authenticated by appointing a local commissioner to visit the place and confirm whether any vehicle is parked in the green belt or not. It is again submitted that no wall exits in the original layout plan of the year 1978 and the access to NHP cannot be denied to the residents of C3-A flats as NHP was part of the layout scheme of C3-A and any later deviation in the master plan by defendant No. 2 is illegal and breach of the terms of the conveyance deed. It is submitted that no cause of action in favor of the plaintiff or against the answering defendant specifically arose on the alleged dates and time. The plaintiff is making contradictory statements. Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 17:22:39 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 24/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone REPLICATION:-
6. In the replication filed on behalf of plaintiff to the WS of the defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 all the averments of plaint are reiterated and allegations of WS are denied.
ISSUES:
7. Thereafter, pleadings were complete and the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 19.02.2014.
Issue no.1:- Whether the suit is barred against the defendant no. 1 by the provisions under Section 477/478 DMC Act, 1957 for want of statutory notice? OPD1.
Issue no.2:- Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD1 Issue no.3:- Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant no. 2 / DDA as the roads, strom water drains, cement concrete paths of Block C-3A Digitally signed by already stands transferred to the erstwhile MCD now VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL SDMC?OPD2. AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:22:48 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 25/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone Issue no.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant no. 1, as pryed in prayer (1) and (2)?OPP.
Issue no.5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant no. 2 as prayed in prayer clause (I) and (II)?OPP.
Issue no.6:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant no. 3 as prayed in prayer clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the prayer clause?OPP.
Issue no.7:- Relief.
Evidence of Plaintiff:-
8. In plaintiff evidence, the plaintiff examined its president namely Dr. P. M. Rai as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and also tendered one additional evidence affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW1/B and relied on the following documents:Digitally signed
Ex.PW1/1 i.e. Authorisation letter. VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR Mark P1 i.e. Bye-laws. KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 Mark P2 i.e. Landscape Plan. 17:22:54 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 26/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone Ex.PW1/2 and PW1/3 i.e. Photographs.
Mark P3, Mark P4 (colly), Mark P8 to Mark P11, Mark P13, Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/8 i.e. the letters for different period of time.
Mark P5 i.e. Order dated 22.06.2011 of Chairman, PGC, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Mark P6 i.e. Status report dated 03.08.2011. Mark P7 (colly)i.e. Photographs of encroachment alongwith ATR Mark P12(colly) - copy of petition from plaintiff to chairman Public Grievance Commission.
Mark 14 - order of public grievances commission Ex.PW1/9 i.e. Landscape plan.
Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11 i.e. some photographs.
8.1. Thereafter, the plaintiff also examined one summoned witness namely R.S. Grewal, AE (WD-2), DDA as PW2 who brought the original site pan as Ex.PW2/1(OSR) and original letter dt. 19.03.2007 as Ex.PW2/2(OSR) and Letter dt. 28.05.2010 as Ex.PW2/3(OSR) ; one summoned witness namely Har Swaroop, Deputy Director (Horticulture Divison-8) DDA as PW3 who brought the original letter dt. 03.02.2011 issued by the Deputy Director Horitculture and the same is Ex.PW3/1(OSR) ; one summoned witness namely Suresh Kumar, LDC WD-II, DDA as PW4 who brought the copy of letters dt. 31.03.2010 and 20.05.2010 as Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 PAGE 27/36 07.02.2026 17:23:02 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone Ex.PW4/1(OSR) and Ex.PW4/2(OSR) ; one summoned witness namely Santosh, AD-I (LS), DDA as PW5 who brought the copy of letters dt. 07.06.2017 along with the land scape plan for green area as Ex.PW5/1(colly.) (OSR) ; one summoned witness namely Ms. Paromita Roy, Deputy Director (HUPW), DDA as PW6 who brought the Housing Layout Plan named as Composite Plan Group Housing Scheme and detailed layout plan as Ex.PW6/A(colly.) (OSR) ; one summoned witness namely Sh. R. S . Bisht, UDC, DDA as PW8 who brought the RTI applications dated 16.09.2011 as Ex.PW8/1(colly.) (OSR). Thereafter, the plaintiff also examined one summoned witness namely Swaraj Rauthan, Junior Assistant as PW9 who brought the orders dated 16.06.2011 and 23.08.2011 as Ex.PW9/1 and Ex. PW9/2 (OSR). All witnesses have been cross-examined by defendant accordingly and then PE has been closed as mentioned in the order dt. 23.08.2022 EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS:-
9. In defendant evidence, the defendant no. 1 examined one witness namely Sh. Rishipal Meena, A.E, MCD, as D1W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit is exhibited as Ex.D1W1/A and relied upon copy of order dated 24.08.2011 which is already Mark P-14 (colly). Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 17:23:08 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 28/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone 9.1. In defendant evidence, the defendant no. 2 examined one witness namely Rakesh Kumar as D2W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.D2W1/A and relied on Ex.D2W1 i.e. Copy of the notification no. 12/22/87-L&B/PLG 25051-65 dt. 20.07.1988 and Ex.D2W1/2 i.e. Copy of letter dt. 07.06.2010 by DDA as reply under RTI.
9.2. In defendant evidence, the defendant no. 3 examined one witness namely Om prakash Dang as D3W1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit is exhibited as Ex.D3W1/A and relied upon copy of conveyance deed dt. 07.06.1978 i.e. Ex.D3W1(OSR) and copy of layout plan as Ex.D3W2. All witnesses have been cross- examined accordingly and then DE has been closed vod. 11.12.2025.
FINDINGS
10. The arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties have been heard at length and file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issues wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 & 2 10.1. The onus to prove these issues was upon the defendant no. 1 and it has been submitted by counsel for defendant no. 1 that VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 29/36 07.02.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 17:23:15 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone suit was apparently barred in view of the absence of the mandatory notice as provided u/S 477/478 of DMC Act.
10.2. It is observed that as provided u/S 478(3) of DMC Act, the bar provided u/S 478(1) of DMC Act is not applicable, where the only relief of injunction has been sought and where the object of the suit would be defeated by giving of notice or by postponement of the suit. Now, as reflected from the plaint itself, the alleged incidence with respect to removal of encroachment from the alleged green belt in question pertained to the year 2007 and again the subsequent letter by DDA in this regard pertained to the year 2010 and again the proceedings before Chairman, PGC pertained to the year 2011, however, present suit was filed in May, 2013 and therefore, it was not the case that by giving notice, the objective of the suit would have been frustrated as counsel for plaintiff has failed to provide any jusitfication in this regard and accordingly suit is apparently bad for non-compliance of Section 478(1) of DMC Act and therefore, the suit without the said compliance was not maintainable. Accordingly, issue no. 1 & 2 are hereby decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no. 1.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR ISSUE NO. 3 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:23:22 +0530 10.3. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 2. It is submitted that as stated in the WS of defendant no. 2 / (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 30/36 07.02.2026 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone DDA, both the colonies involved in the present suit was already transferred by the DDA to MCD for all purposes like building activities including all services like roads, strom water drains, parks, etc. as mentioned in the documents Ex.D2W1/2 since, 1988 and accordingly the plaintiff had no cause of action against DDA for the relief sought by the plaintiff.
10.4. On the other hand, it has been submitted by counsel for plaintiff that it was DDA only, which was taking the action with respect to the shifting of the boundary wall of unerrected green belt area and therefore, the defendant no. 2 cannot deny its liability for the relief of mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff.
10.5. Heard. At the very first, it is observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that it is never the duty of DDA to maintain any colony / society, after the maintenance of the same has been handed over by the DDA to MCD, after completion of construction.
Now, the plaintiff has failed to deny the document Ex.D2W1/2, which clearly supports the version of defendant no. 2 in this regard. Accordingly, it is clear that the plaintiff had no cause of action against defendant no. 2 / DDA in any manner.
10.6. It is further observed that even if it is taken for sake of VIVEK arguments, as alleged by plaintiff that DDA was doing some KUMAR AGARWAL construction activity with respect to errection / shifting of the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.02.07 PAGE 31/36 07.02.2026 17:23:29 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone boundary wall in question, the plaintiff had no right to seek any direction against DDA by way of mandatory injuction. It is observed that law is very well settled that a suit for injunction is maintainable only when there is some right of the plaintiff which has been violated by the defendants. As provided u/S 38 as well as u/S 39 of SRA, the relief of perpetual injunction as well as mandatory injunction can only be granted when there is an obligation on the part of the defendant. In the present suit, the plaintiff has not stated even a single word about the any such obligation on the part of the defendant no.2 towards the plaintiff and it is also not specified in what manner any right of the plaintiff was being affected by any action / omission of defendant no. 2. Accordingly, the present suit fails to disclose any cause of action in favor of plaintiff against defendant no.
2. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant no. 2.
ISSUE NO. 4 to 6:-
11. All the issues being inter-connected are taken together for consideration. It is observed that to prove his case, plaintiff society has examined several witnesses as PW1 to PW9, however, at the very first there are some technical defects in the suit of the plaintiff, which disentitle the plaintiff from seeking any relief from the civil court. It is observed that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff VIVEK claiming itself to be a RWA and the status of a RWA can be taken of KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by PAGE 32/36 07.02.2026 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 17:23:36 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone a 'Society' only. Now, the plaintiff has not even specified in the plaint, if it was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under some other statutes. The document of registration has not been placed on record in the evidence of the plaintiff through its president / PW1.
Again no witness was got summoned from the office of concerned Registrar of Societies so as to prove that the plaintiff society was registered. In the absence of the evidence of registration of society, the suit was certainly no maintainable.
11.1. Going one step further, even if it is taken that the plaintiff society was duly registered under Society Registration Act, 1860, it is further pertinent to mention that the plaintiff also failed to file the record of the office bearers of the plaintiff society, as maintained with the office of Registrar of Society, so as to establish, if Dr. P.M. Rai / PW1 was the General Secretary of the plaintiff society at the time of filing of the suit and again that if he was the President of the plaintiff Society at the time of his examination as PW-1. Mere filing of the authority letter i.e. Ex.PW1/1 was not sufficient to establish that he was the President of the plaintiff Society at the time of his examination as PW-1 and moreover, said authority letter was also not annexed with the Minutes of Meeting so as to establish, again, the plaintiff society also failed to prove the bye-laws of the plaintiff society and said document was not exhibited in the evidence of PW-1. In the absence of said bye-laws, it cannot be determined, if the General Secretary of plaintiff Society was duly VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Digitally signed by PAGE 33/36 07.02.2026 VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 17:23:43 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone authorised to file a suit on behalf of plaintiff Society, as per the bye- laws of the plaintiff Society, in view of Section 6 of the Act.
11.2. Going one step further, even if case is taken up on merits, it is observed that first and foremost dispute involved in the present suit is the determination of the boundary line between the plaintiff colony and the defendant no. 3 / colony and the relief sought by the plaintiff in this regard is the erection / shifting of boundary wall. Now, as stated by the plaintiff himself in para no. 20 and 21 of plaint, there was one order passed by Lt. Governor of Delhi, as Chairman of DDA so as not to erect the wall. During the arguments the counsel for plaintiff at the very first raised the question on the existence of any such order and further contended that even if any such order was passed, it was liable to be set aside by the present court as apparently being incorrect and against the law. It was further submitted that the said order was questionable, as it was not passed in the proper mode and no hearing was given to the plaintiff society/. The counsel further relied upon some judgments, title as Dr. G.N. Khajuria & Ors Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors 1996 of Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR 253, titled as Friends Colony Residents....Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors 114(2004) DLT 587 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled as Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. Vs. UOI & Ors. WP(C)10647/2009 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled as Grand Vasant Residents Wel.Ass Vs. DDA & Ors., LPA 775/2003 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and judgment of Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR PAGE 34/36 07.02.2026 AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 17:23:49 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone Hon'ble National Green Tribunal titled as Umesh Anand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, OA No. 554/2023.
11.3. Heard. It is observed that the judgment relied upon by the counsel for plaintiff are apparently not applicable in the given facts of the present case as they pertain to Writ Petitions and not the civil suit. It is observed that the existence of the order passed by Hon'ble Lt. Governor dt. 07.12.2008 is not in question in any manner, as same has been pleaded by the plaintiff itself in the plaint as well as has been clearly speicified in the WS of all the defendants. Now, when the said order was in place, the only remedy available to the plaintiff society was to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to challenge the order passed by Hon'ble Lt. Governor and the present court had no power to set aside the said order. Moreover, the plaintiff has not sought any declaration with respect to the said order and no issue was framed by the court in this regard. Accordingly, in the absence of relief being sought, there was no eventuality for the court to consider the validity of the said order. Accordingly, when the construction of wall in question was stopped by the order of Hon'ble Lt. Governor, the present court cannot grant the said relief by way of mandatory injunction, which is even otherwise an equitable relief.
The order passed by Hon'ble Lt. Governor, even though not being in proper mode / procedure, as argued by counsel for plaintiff, has its own sanctity and the court cannot presume the said order being Digitally incorrect or invalid only on the plea of the plaintiff. signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL Date:
2026.02.07 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:23:59 PAGE 35/36 07.02.2026 +0530 CS SCJ 609210/2016 C-3 BLOCK (PVT. CONST.) JANAK PURI Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, West Zone 11.4. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to grant the relief of mandatory or permanent injunction, as sought by the plaintiff. Issue no. 4 to 6 are decided accordingly against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 7:- RELIEF
12. In view of above findings of issue no. 1 to 6, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 17:24:08 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/07.02.2026 (Announced in open court On 07.02.2026).
Note: This order contains 36 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.02.07 AGARWAL 17:24:13 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/07.02.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 36/36 07.02.2026