Delhi District Court
Ram Dev vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors on 18 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA,SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, KARKARDOOMA COURTS
(SHAHDARA).
Civil Suit No. 1448/19 (old no.499/2018)
Case Registration No. DLSH030026512019
Mr. Ram Dev,
S/o Mr. Baij Nath,
R/o E-52/4 Aradhak Nagar,
Shahdara, Border, Near Toll Tax,
Delhi -95. ...Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Delhi Development Authority, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi through its Director (residential A-BLK), 1st Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Slum & JJ Department of MCD Punerwas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi, Through its Director.
3. Mr. Sargun Dass, S/o Mr. Baij Nath, R/o E-52/4 Aradhak Nagar, Shahdara, Border, Near Toll Tax, Delhi -95. ...Defendants Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.1/17 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 16:42:58 +0530 SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERPETUAL AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION Date of Institution : 22.05.2018 Date of Reserving Judgment : 21.12.2024 Date of Decision : 18.01.2025 Decision : Dismissed Judgment:-
1) The present suit was initially filed on 21.05.2018. Vide judgment dated 25.04.2019, the present plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Thereafter, VOD 30.11.2019, passed by Sh. Vineet Kumar, Ld. ADJ-01, Shahdara District, the present suit was restored.
2) Relief claimed:-
a) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff as defendant no.3 has no legal right, interest and claim in the property in question and hand over the vacant peaceful physical possession of the property in question.
b) Pass a declaration that plaintiff become the owner in possession of the property in question.
c) Pass a decree of perpetual injunction by restraining the defendant no.3 and its agents, employes, legal heirs, authorized, friend and relatives not to raise/construct, alteration, modification or to create any third party interest in the property in question.
d) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant no.1 and 2 to carry relevant entry of ownership in the name of plaintiff being the original allottee.
3) The facts, as given in the plaint, are briefly stated as follows:-
Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.2/17 NIHARIKA Digitally signed by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 SHARMA 16:43:07 +0530 i. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration, perpetual and mandatory injunction. As per the averments made in the plaint, Mr. Ram Dev (plaintiff) is the absolute owner of the property bearing no. E-52/4 Aradhak Nagar, Shahdara Border, Near toll Tax, Delhi-95 and having ration card, election identity card, Aadhar card in his name on the abovesaid Jhuggi and residing in the said property with his family for more than three decades. Plaintiff has deposited the charges for electricity connection vide K. No. 623/139190 dated 26.09.2006 and an electricity CRN no. 1211142639 which was installed in the name of plaintiff's son, namely, Manoj Kumar. Plaintiff was also filed suit bearing no. 74/2011 for possession against Sargun Dass (defendant no.3) which was dismissed on 03.08.2013 by the court of Sh. Neeraj Gaur, ACJ/CCJ/ARC Shahdara, KKD, Delhi and thereafter an appeal bearing no.143/2013 was filed by the plaintiff and the same was disposed off vide order dated 30.10.2014 passed by Sh. A.S. Jayachandra, Ld. ADJ-1, Shahdara, Karkardooma, Delhi with liberty to seek declaration concerning his property and urge for consequential relief thereon. Plaintiff had moved an application to know the status of ownership of the said jhuggi and sought certified copies under RTI and the same was acknowledged by defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 vide letter no. R.T.I. 233/LM/EZ/DDA/2017/370 dated 09.06.2017 and No. EDMC/HQ/RTI Cell/2017/D-3112.
ii. Plaintiff has stated that defendant no.1 had allotted the Jhuggi no. 67, Aradhak Nagar, Shahdara Border, New Toll Tax, Delhi-95 to the plaintiff on 10.09.1985 by the Delhi Development Authority (Socio Economic Wing) city planning Census of Squatters dated 10.09.1985. Further, defendant no. 2 is the department who has maintained all the Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.3/17 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.01.18 16:43:15 +0530 records in respect of the said jhuggi, being the part of the Delhi Administration issued token no. 193463 to the plaintiff.
iii. Defendant no. 3 is the real brother of the plaintiff and in the year 1998, plainitff allowed his brother, namely Sargun Dass, to temporarily reside in the said jhuggi as defendant no. 3 has no accommodation in Delhi, with the assurance that the defendant no.3 shall vacate the property of the plaintiff on its demand. Thereafter, defendant no. 3 started illegal construction by raising partition wall in the said jhuggi without any permission or without any lawful right. It is stated by plaintiff that he had reported the matter to 100 PCR on 03.04.2018 and on 04.04.2018 for restraining the defendant no.3, however, no action was taken by the police. On 05.04.2018, plaintiff reported the matter to the Police Commissioner, SHO and MCD Commissioner vide letter received by all the said department on the same day and was advised to stay away from the court. It is stated by plaintiff that he has not issued any authority letter, SPA, GPA or any sale letter or agreement or any affidavit to transfer the ownership of the said jhuggi to defendant no. 3 or anyone else. Thereafter, plaintiff filed the present suit restraining the defendant no.3 from raising illegal construction or to create any third party interest in the suit property.
iv. Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 16.08.2017 to the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 and a reply vide no. RTI 233/LM/EZ/DDA/2017/676 dated 20.11.2017 and F.5(1) 6/RTI/pt/261 dated 22.11.2017 was sent by defendant no. 1. No reply was sent by defendant no. 2 of the said legal notice dated 16.08.2017.
Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.4/17
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.18
4) The plaintiff then instituted the present suit on 21.05.2018. The summons of the suit were issued, vide order dated 22.05.2018, for service to be effected upon the defendants by way of ordinary process returnable on 08.06.2018. The defendants were served and the written statement were filed on behalf of the defendants.
5) In the written statement of defendant no.1, several objections have been raised by the defendant, namely, that the plaintiff is trying to mislead this Court by manipulating census of squatter issued on 10.09.1985 as an allotment letter and that the suit land forms part of land of khasra no. 52 min. of revenue estate Jhilmil, Tahirpur, which is a government land and transferred to DDA by virtue of Nazul Agreement of 1937 and the plaintiff is an unauthorized occupant of Government land. Defendant no. 1 has denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is neither the lawful registered allottee and nor the owner of the suit property.
6) In the written statement of defendant no. 2, several objections have been raised by the defendant no.2, namely, that the defendant no.2 (DUSIB) is the Nodal Agency for implemention of policy for relocation/rehabilitation of JJ Basties under the provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter improvement Board Act, 2010. That the defendant no.2 in its 16 th meeting held on 11.04.2016 has approved the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 for relocation/rehabilitation of JJ Basties of Delhi, approved by Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi and issued by Urban Development Department, Government of NCT of Delhi vide order dated 11.12.2017 and as per the said policy, the basties which have come up before 01.01.2006 shall not be removed without providing alternative housing to the JJ Dwellers and Jhuggies which have come up in such Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.5/17 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 16:43:29 +0530 basties before 01.01.2015 shall not be demolished without providing alternative housing. Defendant no.2 stated that as per list of 675 JJ Basties, the JJ Basti Aradhak Nagar, Delhi UP Border, GT Road, Shahdara exist at Sr. no. 600 with land owning agency DDA. It is further submitted by defendant no.2 that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief(s) and suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
7) In the written statement of defendant no.3, several objections have been raised by the defendant no.3, that the defendant no.3 has been residing in the suit property since,1984 and denied that the defendant no.1 had allotted the Jhuggi no. 67, Aradhak Nagar, Shahdara Border, Near Toll Tax, Delhi-110095 now known as E-52/4 Aradhak Nagar, Shahdara Border, New Toll Tax, Delhi-95 to the plaintiff on 10.09.1985. It is submitted by defendant no.3 that actual number of the property is E-52/4 Aradhak Nagar, Shahdara Border, New Toll Tax, Delhi-95 and the plaintiff has deliberately mentioned the two numbers of the suit property. It is denied by defendant no .3 that defendant no.1 or any other department has ever allotted the suit property to the plaintiff at any point of time and the suit property belongs to DDA and DUSIB is the owner of the suit property. It is further submitted that the suit property belongs to the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.3 and after her demise, plaintiff and defendant no.3 partitioned the suit property and since then they both are residing in their respective shares and defendant no.3 has constructed his share from his own funds and plaintiff has never raised any objection regarding the construction and being the Lrs of the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.3, defendant no.3 has right to reside in the suit property. It is submitted by defendant no.3 that he has also obtained the electricity connection in the name of his wife Smt. Vimla Devi in his portion. That the plaintiff has filed a document which is only a Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.6/17 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 16:43:36 +0530 census of squatters and falsely claiming that the said document is a allotment letter. Further, plaintiff has filed the present suit to garb the share of the defendant no.3 and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
8) A replication was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, denying the allegations/averments made by the defendants in their written statements.
9) Issues:- On completion of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for ?OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for?OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? (Relief)
10) Evidence:- All the parties were given an opportunity to lead their evidence.
The plaintiff proceeded to first lead his evidence. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. PW-1 stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his examination-in-chief, by way of an affidavit, as Exhibit PW-1/A. Following documents relied upon by the plaintiff:-
S.no. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. The Original CENSUS of Squatters vide serial Mark A no.B no.3857 in respect of the Jhuggi No.E-52/4, Aradhak Nagar, New Delhi issued by the DDA on 18.09.1985 and has been filed in the suit no.
Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.7/17
NIHARIKA Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18
16:43:44 +0530
74/2011
2. Photocopy of the Token no. 193463 issued by the Exhibit PW-1/1
Delhi Administration (OSR)
3. Photocopy of the ration card issued on 11.08.2005 Mark B
4. Photocopy of the Election card no.HCN0907709 Exhibit PW-1/2 of Ram Dev (OSR)
5. Photocopy of the Aadhar Card no.215288758184 Exhibit PW-1/3 of Ram Dev (OSR)
6. Photocopy of identity card no.024815 issued for Exhibit PW-1/4 the disabled to Ram Dev (OSR)
7. Photocopy of the PAN Card No. BDJD8928H Exhibit PW-1/5 (OSR)
8. Photocopy of the birth certificate of son of Ram Exhibit PW-1/6 Dev born on 27.07.1982 (OSR)
9. Photocopy of family photograph of Ram Dev Mark C
10. Photocopy of identity card issued by Ministry of Mark D Labour, Vocational Rehabilitation Center for Handicap of Ram Dev dated 28.09.2000
11. Photocopy of electricity payment deposited by Mark E and Mark F Ram Dev and copy of electricity bill for CRN 1211142639 installed in name Manoj Kumar s/o Ram Dev
12. Photocopy of caste certificate no. 4765/Shahdara Exhibit PW-1/7 85 dated 16.10.1985 of Ram Dev (OSR)
13. Photocopy of the disability certificate Exhibit PW-1/8 Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.8/17 NIHARIKA Digitally signed by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 16:43:52 +0530 no.F.RAL-11/82-83 no. 10253/82 of Ram Dev, (OSR)
14. Photocopy of application dated 18.04.2017 made Mark G under RTI Act to DUSIB by Ram Dev
15. Counter receipt of postal order no.134974 Exhibit PW-1/9
16. Photocopy of application dated 18.04.2017 made Mark H under RTI Act to DDA by Ram Dev
17. Counter receipt of postal order no.134973 Exhibit PW-1/10,
18. Photocopy of the application dated 18.04.2017 Mark I made under RTI Act to Slum and JJ Department of MCD by Ram Dev
19. Counter receipt of postal order no.134972 Exhibit PW-1/11
20. Original postal receipts of the said RTI Exhibit PW-1/12 applications (Colly)
21. Photocopy of the plaint with affidavit filed by the Mark J (Colly) plaintiff against Sargun Dass in suit bearing no.
74/201122. Photocopy of certified copy of the judgment dated Exhibit PW-1/13 03.08.2013, ordersheet dated 03.08.2013 and (Colly) decree dated 03.08.2013 passed by the court of Sh. Neeraj Gaur, ACJ /CCJ/ARC, Shahdara, Karkadooma, Delhi in CS no.74/2011
23. Certified copy of judgement passed in appeal Exhibit PW-1/14 bearing RCA no.143/2013 disposed off vide order (Colly) dated 30.10.2014 passed by Sh. A.S. Jayachandra, Ld. ADJ-1, Shahdara, KKD, with ordersheet dated 30.10.2014 and memorandum of appeal dated Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.9/17 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.18 16:44:00 +0530 30.10.2014
24. Letter no. RTI/4999/2012 issued from the office of Exhibit PW-1/15, PMO dated 29.11.2012, 27.11.2012 and Exhibit PW-1/16 06.11.2012 and Exhibit PW-1/17
25. Copy of reply dated 27.08.2006 given by Public Mark K Relations officer to the RTI application
26. Letter no. F. 4/942/2015-Wel/CD/671-72 dated Exhibit PW-1/18 03.07.2015 issued by office of the commissioner for person with disabilities
27. Copy of Letter no. 5976/Complt. (DA-II)/ Ned, Mark L (Colly) Delhi dated 25.06.2015 sent by office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, copy of letter (noF/Misc/12/15/173/13/13895/legal cell/East Distt., Delhi/2015, copy of letter sent by Addl.
Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District, Delhi
28. Three letters dated 15.10.2012 written by Ram Exhibit PW-1/19 Dev to President, Prime Minister and Home (Colly), Exhibit Minister and three acknowledgment receipts PW-1/20 (Colly), issued by concerned Departments Exhibit PW-1/21 (Colly)
29. copy of legal notice dated 16.08.2017 under Mark M Section 80 of CPC sent to DDA and DUSIB
30. Three original postal receipt of said legal notice Exhibit PW-1/22 Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.10/17 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 16:44:12 +0530 (Colly)
31. letter of DDA bearing no. RTI 233/LM/ Exhibit PW-1/23 EZ/DDA2017/676 dated 20.11.2017 with (Colly) envelope, and reply of DDA to the said legal notice bearing no. F-5 (1) 6/RTI/Pt./261 dated 22.11.2017 with envelope
32. photocopy of letter no. F-5 (1) 6/RTI/Pt./928/148 Mark N dated 11.07.2017
33. Copy of complaint report lodged to the Exhibit PW-1/24 Commissioner of Police, SHO and MCD Commissioner received on 05.04.2018
34. Site plan of suit property Exhibit PW-1/25 PW-1 was cross-examined by the Learned counsel for the defendant. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and PE was closed by way of separate statement.
11) The matter was then listed for defendants' evidence. In support of their case, the defendant no.1 examined one witness as DW-2 Mr. Rohit Pratap Singh, Patwari, LM, central Zone with Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi. DW-2 stepped into the witness box as DW-2 and tendered his examination-in-chief, by way of an affidavit, as Exhibit DW-2/A. Following documents relied upon by the defendant no.1:-
S.No. Document Exhibit/Mark
1. The copy of Nazul Agreement Mark DW-2/1,
2. The Jamabandi of the year 1967-1968 Exhibit DW-2/2.
Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.11/17
NIHARIKA Digitally signed by
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.01.18
SHARMA 16:44:21 +0530
showing the ownership of DDA
DW-2 was cross-examined by the Learned counsel for the plaintiff.
12) Next, defendant no.2 examined one witness as DW-3 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Kanojia, Assistant Director (Rehabilitation/Sociology), Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, who has tendered his examination-in-chief, by way of an affidavit, as Exhibit DW-3/A and relied upon copy of order dated 11.12.2017 bearing no.730(7)/UD/BSUP/2016/CD No. 021366111/3014-22 regarding the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Department of Urban Development as Exhibit DW-3/1.
13) Next, the defendant no.3 has examined himself as DW-1 Mr. Sargun Dass, who has tendered his examination-in-chief, by way of an affidavit, as Exhibit DW-1/A and relied upon document site plan of the property as Exhibit DW-1/1 and copy of the electricity bill of in the name of Sargun Kumar of E-52/4, Aradhak Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-95 dated 21.06.2018 as Mark A. DW-1 was cross-examined by the Learned counsel for the plaintiff. The defendant's evidence was closed. No other witness was examined by the defendants.
14) Argument have been heard in detail and material on record is perused.
15) Analysis of evidence:- All the issues will be dealt together as they are interconnected and requires common disconnection and analysis of the evidence.
Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.12/17
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.18
16:44:31 +0530
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for ?OPP Burden of proof to prove the present issue is upon the plaintiff. By way of the present relief, the plaintiff has sought two declarations i.e., firstly, defendant no.3 has no legal right/interest in the suit property and secondly, plaintiff has become the owner of in possession of the suit property being the original allottee. Plaintiff in the plaint has claimed the aforesaid relief on the basis of being an original allottee of the suit property. No document is filed on record showing allottment of the suit property by DDA or DUSIB to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is relying upon Mark A and Exhibit PW-1/1 i.e., original census of squatters and copy of token no .193463. However, no document is filed on record by the plaintiff to show that by virtue of the aforesaid documents, the suit property stands allotted to the plaintiff. No document is filed to show the rights that arise in favour of plaintiff on account of a squatter. Technically, squatters settlements are residential area occupied by people who have settled on public land without any title. The document Mark A relied upon by the plaintiff merely shows his status as a squatter on the suit property and this status has not changed to an allottee till date. Defendant no.1 clearly stated that the suit property founds part of Khasra no.52, which is a government land transferred to DDA vide Exhibit D1DW/1. It is further stated that no allotment of Jhugii no. 67 at Aradhak Nagar, Shahdara Border has ever been allotted by DDA to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not filed the document by way of which any right, title and interest arising out of suit property is in favour of the plaintiff. Mere possession do not grant per se any right or tile, interest on the government land to the possessor. PW-1 in his cross-examination stated that Mark A is the allottment document of the suit property. Perusal of the Mark A and Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.13/17 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 16:44:38 +0530 Exhibit PW-1/1 do not mention anywhere that any right, title, interest is accorded to the plaintiff by virtue of this document. On the contrary, DW-2/2 clearly shows that the land on which the suit property is located is owned by DDA. DDA i.e., defendant no.1 clearly stated that the suit property on the DDA land was never allotted to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is not able to file any document showing his right, title, interest on the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff is not able to discharge the burden of proof.
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for?OPP By way of the present relief, the plaintiff seeks permanent injunction by permanently restraining defendant no.3 to raise any construction or to create any thir party interest in the suit property. Burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that being an unauthorized occupant of the government land he has any right against defendant no.3. Injunction is an equitable relief and is granted to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favour of the plaintiff. In the present case, plaintiff is not able to show the existance (expressely or by implication) show existence of any obligation in his favour qua the suit property. Hence, plaintiff is not able to discharge the burden of proof.
16) Plaintiff has filed various other documents to show his possession on the suit property. The document i.e., photocopy of the ration card is Mark B. This document grants right to the holder of certain amount of food of grains/food from the Public Distribution System. The said document do not grant any right/title/interest to the card holder with respect to the address of the property mentioned on the card. Plaintiff has relied upon election card as PW-1/2. By virtue of this document, the plaintif is entitled to cast his vote in the elections and do not grant the right/title/interest to Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.14/17 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 16:44:47 +0530 the card holder with respect to the address of the property mentioned in the election card. Thereafter, the plaintiff has relied upon the Aadhar card as ExPW-1/3 which proves the identity of the plaintiff and does not prove the right qua the property. Similary, the documents i.e. pan card, birth certificate, labour card, disability certificate, caste certificate, electricity bill are documents for specific purpose which do not grant any right/title/interest in the property mentioned on the card. They merely prove that the plaintiff is using the address for the residence but do not prove his ownership qua the said residence. In fact, it is an admitted fact the defendant no.3 is also having an electricity connection qua the portion he is residing. Hence, either of the electricity connections only prove the possession and not the title qua the suit property.
17) Mark H is the letter sent by the plaintiff to the director DDA i.e. defendant no.1 seeking supply the certified copy of the allottment letter, certified copy of the present status of ownership and supply of all the old and latest ownership of the premises in question. Similary, another letter Mark I is also sent to the Director, Slum & JJ Department of MCD. The plaintiff did not affix on record the reply that is received qua these letters. Further, the letters were sent to the office of DDA and defendant no.1 in the written statement clearly denied any allottment of the suit property to the plaintiff.
18) The defence of the defendant no.1 is that the land on which the suit property is built, the Jhuggi of the plaintiff was never taken up for allottement and plaintiff is residing as an unauthorized occupant. The plaintiff is claiming that he is allottee of the suit property. It is clear from the discussion above that no document is filed by the plaintiff to show the allottment of the suit property in his name or the name of any other person Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.15/17 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.18 16:44:54 +0530 from whom the plaintiff has taken up the suit property. In fact, no nearby resident is examined by the plaintiff to show that the jhuggi is nearby were allotted by DDA. Hence, plaintiff is not able to prove that the process of allottment was carried out by the DDA with respect to the suit property.
19) Issue-wise findings:-
i. Issue i- The plaintiff is not able to discharge the burden of proof.
Plaintiff is not entitled to the decree of declaration qua defendant no.3 as plaintiff is not able to prove his own right,title and interest qua the suit property. Plaintiff's status in the suit property is no better than that of defendant no.3. Both the plaintiff and defendant no.3 are unauthorized occupants on the government land. Further, no relief of declaration of ownership is granted to the plaintiff as plaintiff is not able to prove by virtue of oral or written document his allottment qua the suit property.
ii. Issue ii- The plaintiff is not able to discharge the burden of proof. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as plaintiff is not able to prove his own right/title and interest qua the suit property.
iii. Issue iii- The plaintiff is not able to discharge the burden of proof. The plaintiff is not able to prove that any proceedings of allottment are carried out by the DDA qua the land on which suit property is built.
Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.16/17
NIHARIKA Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18
16:45:02 +0530
20) Final Order:- The present suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
NIHARIKA Digitally signed by NIHARIKA Pronounced in Open Court KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA on January 18, 2025 SHARMA Date: 2025.01.18 16:45:09 +0530 (NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA) Senior Civil Judge-cum RC KKD/SHD/DELHI/18.01.2025 Civ suit 1448/19 dt. 18.01.2025 Ram Dev v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors Pg no.17/17