Delhi District Court
Shri Dharampal vs Sh Jagdish Singh on 30 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI. ASHISH AGGARWAL, CIVIL JUDGE1,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CS No: 296/11
Unique Case ID No. 02405C0390372009
Shri Dharampal,
S/o Sh Bhagwan Dass,
R/o Village Kharkhari Nahar,
Post office Khaira, Najafgarh,
New Delhi110043 ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh Jagdish Singh
S/o Sh Ram Kishan
R/o Village Kharkhari Nahar,
Post office Khaira, Najafgarh,
New Delhi110043
2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place
New Delhi110019 ... Defendants
Date of Institution: 01.10.2009
Date on which judgment was reserved: 06.09.2011
Date of pronouncing judgment: 30.09.2011
Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 1 of 41
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
J U D G M E N T
1. The suit shall be decided by this judgment. The stance of the parties is briefly adumbrated as under.
Version of the Plaintiff
2. Plaintiff has pleaded that on 25.09.1981, he was allotted land measuring 4 bighas and 8 biswas in Khasra No. 18/11 in the revenue estate of village Kharkhari Nahar, Najafgarh, New Delhi110043 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). According to the plaintiff, he is in continuous possession of the property since that day. It is further pleaded that he paid land revenue in respect of the property till the year 1991 after which revenue was not collected by the authorities. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 is a local resident of the area who has no right, title or interest in the suit property. In the month of March, 2009, the plaintiff submitted an application to defendant no. 2 i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited for providing electricity connection for agricultural purpose. Electricity connection was sanctioned by defendant no. 2. After survey of the premises, the officials of defendant no. 2 informed the plaintiff that before grant of electricity connection, poles would have to be installed on the field and wires would have to be laid. They stated that only thereafter Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 2 of 41 security would be accepted from the plaintiff for grant of electricity connection. It is further pleaded that on 13.04.2009, plaintiff applied to O&M (Division), Najafgarh of defendant no. 2 for installation of electricity poles and supply lines. On 07.07.2009, the officials of defendant no. 2 arrived at the suit property to install poles and to lay supply wires. However, the defendant no. 1 created nuisance and obstructed the installation. As a result, officials of defendant no. 2 were unable to install poles. According to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 has no right to object to or hinder the installation of poles. By the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 and his representatives from interfering in the installation of electricity poles and supply lines in the suit property by officials of defendant no. 2. Version of defendant no. 1.
3. The defendant no. 1 filed written statement. The defendant No. 1 has averred in his written statement that the suit is not maintainable since the Union of India and Gaon Sabha have not been arrayed as defendants. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as he is not the bhumidar of the suit property and the suit property belongs to the Gaon Sabha. It is stated that the application of the plaintiff for being declared bhumidar of the land is pending and is yet to be decided. It is further pleaded that the suit is barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 3 of 41 Act. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is a trespasser in the suit property who has no authority to occupy the same. It is urged that the resolution dated 25.08.1981 passed by the Gaon Sabha whereby the land was allotted to the plaintiff was passed in contravention of principles of natural justice since the plaintiff himself was member of the resolution committee which passed the resolution in his favour. It is further pleaded that the allotment resolution/certificate issued by the Gaon Sabha on the basis of which the plaintiff claims to be "asami" of the land is a forged and fabricated document. According to the defendant No. 1, the certificate was obtained in violation of allotment rules and regulations since the plaintiff was neither a landless person nor an exserviceman at the time of allotment and it is only the said categories of persons who are entitled to allotment of land. It is further stated that the plaintiff has concealed the fact that two cases under Section 74 (4) and under Section 75(2) are pending against the plaintiff in the Court of SubDivisional Magistrate and the Court of Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of allotment. It is further stated in the written statement that by obtaining the electricity connection, the plaintiff is trying to give a cloak of legality to his illegal occupation. Stand of defendant no.2.
4. The defendant no.2 filed written statement. In its written statement, the defendant no.2 pleaded that the plaintiff had applied for electricity Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 4 of 41 connection. As per policy of defendant no.2, before granting connection, the site was required to be inspected for assessing technical feasibility. During the inspection, the plaintiff was asked to fulfill commercial formalities. The inspection could not be completed due to the intervention of defendant no.1.
Issues
5. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court by order dated 28.01.2010 as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
6. The plaintiff adduced evidence in support of his case. He examined Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, BDO Office, SouthWest, Najafgarh, New Delhi110043 as PW1. PW1 produced the original resolution register and LR37 receipt. He identified the resolution dated 25.08.1981 whereby the suit property had been allotted to the plaintiff as Ex. PW1/1.
7. PW1 was crossexamined on behalf of the defendant no.1. In his crossexamination, PW1 stated that the land in question is owned by the Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 5 of 41 Gram Sabha. He stated that he was not aware of any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (SouthWest) for taking back land belonging to asamies. It was stated that the BDO is the caretaker of Gram Sabha. PW1 also stated that no person is permitted to construct or install tube well or to obtain electricity connection on the said land even if he is an asami and an asami is merely a tenant. He also stated that no resolution has been passed after the resolution dated 25.08.1981 regarding the suit property.
8. The plaintiff then examined himself as PW2. He tendered his affidavit Ex. PW2/A in evidence. In his affidavit, PW2 reiterated the averments made in the plaint. He stated that he is in continuous possession of the suit property since 25.09.1981 and that he had been paying land revenue since that day till the year 1991 after which revenue was not collected by the authorities. PW2 denied the allegation that the resolution dated 25.08.1981 whereby the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff was obtained in contravention of principles of natural justice. He further denied that he is a trespasser on the suit property. PW2 asserted that he is an asami and that a suit for declaring him bhumidar is already pending adjudication in the court of SDM/RA, Najafgarh, Delhi. He asserted that the defendant no.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property. The plaintiff/PW2 denied that he was not a landless person or exserviceman. He further denied that the resolution dated 25.08.1981 is a forged or fabricated document. The plaintiff/PW2 stated that he had no Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 6 of 41 ancestral land in his name at the time of allotment of the suit property. PW2 also stated that the defendant no.1 is in the habit of interfering with and obstructing the work of other persons. The plaintiff/PW2 stated that in March, 2009, the deponent had applied for electricity connection with the defendant no.2 which was duly sanctioned. The officials of defendant no.2 had to install poles for grant of electricity supply which was impeded by defendant no.2. PW2 identified and relied upon the allotment certificate dated 25.09.1981 as Ex. PW2/1, khatoni dated 22.05.2007 as Ex. PW2/2, LR receipt dated 15.09.1981 as Ex. PW2/3, receipt dated 10.10.1988 as Ex.PW2/3A, AD receipt as Ex. PW2/4, application for electricity connection dated 13.04.2009 as Ex. PW2/5, application dated 10.07.2009 to the SDM as Ex. PW2/6 and order dated 7.09.2009 of the SDM as Ex. PW2/7.
9. PW2 was crossexamined on behalf of defendant no.1. He stated during crossexamination that in the year 1981, when the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff, he was functioning as Naib Pradhan of the panchayat. PW2/plaintiff stated that at the time of allotment, he was already joint owner of land measuring seven bighas alongwith his mother. PW2 stated that he was not aware of the policies or rules regarding allotment of Gram Sabha land prevailing at that time. He further stated that the khatoni Ex. PW2/2 pertains to the year 200203 and that he has been shown as an asami in the said document. PW2 further stated that he does not have land revenue receipt except those identified as Ex. PW2/3 and Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 7 of 41 Ex.PW2/3A since the panchayat was abolished thereafter. PW2 also stated that he had not filed any document relating to the proceedings pending in the court of Deputy Commissioner, SouthWest. He further deposed that he had filed a case against the Gram Sabha before the Court of SDM, Najafgarh for declaring himself as Bhumidar and that the said case is pending. He further deposed that the suit property belongs to Gaon Sabha. PW2 stated that he had not taken any permission either from the Gaon Sabha or the Block Development Officer for procuring electricity connection on the suit property and that permission had never been demanded from him by defendant no.2. The plaintiff/PW2 also stated that he had not taken any permission from ground water authority for installation of tube well in the suit property as it was not required in the year 1988. PW2 denied the suggestion that the tubewell was ever sealed by the SDM at the time of its installation. He however admitted that the tubewell stood sealed on the day of deposition by the Tehsildar by order of the Deputy Commissioner. PW2 admitted that Gram Sabha had filed a case against him for cancellation of allotment of the suit property which was pending in the court of Deputy Commissioner, South West. PW2 further stated that he was not aware whether at the time of installation of tube well in the year 1989, the SDM had filed a complaint with SHO, police station Jaffarpur. He further stated that he was not aware whether any direction was issued to SHO, police station Jaffarpur on 9.1.1989 by the SDM, Punjabi Bagh for Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 8 of 41 taking action against the plaintiff for encroachment of the suit property. The witness also stated that he had not informed the Gaon Sabha regarding application for procuring the electricity connection on the suit property despite the fact that the property belonged to Gaon Sabha. PW2 denied the suggestion that he cannot obtain electricity connection on the suit property and that he was not entitled for the same. Plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Defence Evidence
10. The defendant no.1 adduced evidence in support of his case. He examined himself as DW1. DW1 stated in his examinationinchief that the suit property belongs to the Gram Sabha. He stated that he is a resident of the village and that the plaintiff has no right on the said land. DW1 further deposed that the plaintiff was not entitled for any electricity connection on the suit property without prior permission of Block Development Officer or Deputy Commissioner. DW1 identified the khasra girdawari in which Gram Sabha was shown as owner of the suit property as Ex.DW1/1. He stated that a case between the plaintiff and Block Development Officer/Gram Sabha is pending before the Court of SDM. He identified the report received in this behalf under the Right to Information Act as mark A. DW1 asserted that since the plaintiff has no right on the suit property which belongs to Gram Sabha, he in the capacity of a villager is objecting to the Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 9 of 41 encroachment of plaintiff on the suit property. He further stated that the plaintiff has no right to obtain an electricity connection on the said government land.
11. DW1 was crossexamined on behalf of the plaintiff. In cross examination, DW1 pleaded ignorance of the measurement of the suit property. He stated that the plaintiff is not an asami in the suit property and the resolution in this behalf was passed after accepting bribe. DW1 explained that he had not stated the allegation of bribery in his written statement as he has no proof for the same. DW1 further stated that he has no right in the suit property as the land belongs to Gram Sabha and that he was interfering merely because he is resident of village Kharkhari Nahar. He further stated that there are only two cases pending, one in the Court of SDM/RA, Najafgarh and the other in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, SouthWest, Delhi. The witness further stated that he was not aware of any other case and that he is not a party in the said cases. DW1 deposed that he had no knowledge of the status of those cases. DW1 further stated that he had filed a complaint against the plaintiff about the suit property before the SDM, Deputy Commissioner, Block Development Officer and Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. He further stated that he had not filed copy of any of the said complaints. DW1 denied the suggestions that the plaintiff is asami of the suit property or that he has any right to get electricity connection on the said land. He also denied the suggestion that he had no Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 10 of 41 right to interfere in getting installation of electricity connection by the plaintiff. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is not encroaching on the suit property. DW1 was then discharged. The defendant No. 2 did not lead any evidence in support of its case. Defence evidence was closed.
12. Final arguments are heard. Record is perused. The issuewise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for?"
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 and his representatives from interfering in the installation of electricity poles and supply lines on the suit property.
14. According to the plaintiff, he is in continuous possession of the suit property since 25.09.1981 as its asami. The plaintiff has pleaded that he had applied for an electricity connection in the suit property and the said connection was sanctioned. However, when the officials of the electricity supplier (defendant no.2) came to install poles and wires, this was obstructed by the defendant.
Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 11 of 41
15. In support of his case, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is an asami in the suit property and since he is in continuous possession thereof, he is entitled to obtain electricity connection. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further argued that the defendant admittedly has no right, title or interest in the suit property and therefore has no locus standi to object to the grant of electricity connection. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further submitted that whether the plaintiff is entitled to electricity connection is a matter to be considered by electricity supplier and since this is a matter between the supplier and consumer of electricity, the defendant not being a privy to the contract cannot restrain its enforcement. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further submitted that the plaintiff has not made the Gaon Sabha or the Block Development Officer a party to the suit since no relief is claimed against them and the defendant has also failed to demonstrate that their permission is needed before sanction of electricity connection. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has emphasized that the issue that the case presents is not whether the plaintiff is entitled to electricity but whether the defendant has a right to object to its grant. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the allegation of bribery made by the defendant are vague and no particulars thereof have been provided by the defendant. It is further argued that there is no such allegation levelled in the written statement and the accusation has been made only in the testimony of the defendant tendered before the court. It is Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 12 of 41 submitted that the resolution dated 25.09.1981 passed by the Gaon Sabha has not been challenged by the defendant and by the said resolution asami rights have been bestowed upon the plaintiff.
16. On the other hand, according to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of electricity supply and the defendant has a right to prevent this illegality. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff fraudulently got the suit property allotted in his name as asami by the Gaon Sabha. The resolution dated 25.09.1981 passed by the Gaon Sabha is, according to the defendant, tainted by mala fides in as much as the plaintiff was member of the committee which passed the resolution in his own favour. It is also pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiff was also not entitled to be allotted land as asami since the plaintiff was, on that day, not a landless person or exserviceman. The defendant has also urged that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Further, the defendant has pleaded that proceedings for cancellation of allotment are already underway and that this fact has been concealed by the plaintiff. The defence of the defendant is that the plaintiff is trying to obtain electricity connection with the view to give a cloak of legitimacy to his illegal occupation as trespasser.
17. In support of his defence, Ld. Counsel for defendant has firstly argued that the plaintiff has not lawfully acquired the status of an asami and therefore is not entitled to occupy the suit property and consequently Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 13 of 41 not entitled to electricity connection. Secondly, it is argued that even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is an asami, his status would then be that of a lessee and even a lessee cannot obtain electricity connection without obtaining no objection certificate from the owner which, in the instant case, is the Gaon Sabha. It is submitted that since permission of Gaon Sabha has not been obtained by the plaintiff, his application for electricity connection cannot be entertained by the supplier of electricity. It is further argued that the defendant being a public spirited individual has a right to prevent an illegal act of grant of electricity in contravention of the law and that is why the defendant has the locus standi to object to the installation of poles and wires. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the suit is not maintainable since the Gram Sabha and Union of India have not been made a party to the suit. It is further argued that the tube well in the suit property for the running of which the plaintiff had applied for electricity connection, has been sealed by the concerned authorities and therefore no purpose would be served by grant of electricity. It is also submitted on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff has concealed the fact of sealing of tube well and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of injunction.
18. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has rejoined arguments. It is submitted that the argument of the defendant regarding concealment of facts has no substance. It is submitted that the matter of sealing of tube well has not been pleaded in the written statement by the defendant and therefore he Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 14 of 41 cannot be permitted to orally take this plea at the stage of final arguments. It is also stated that the tubewell was sealed by the SDM after filing of suit and therefore the plaintiff was not able to disclose this fact in the plaint. It is also submitted that the plaintiff has already filed a petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to challenge the sealing of tube well which petition is still pending.
19. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, in order to decide whether the plaintiff is entitled to be grant of permanent injunction, prayed by him, the following questions need to be determined.
A. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court? B. Whether this Court is competent to grant the reliefs prayed for in view of provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act? C. What is the status of the plaintiff in the suit property: whether he can be treated as an asami? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to electricity connection without obtaining prior permission of the SDM or Gram Sabha?
D. Whether the suit is barred on account of the failure of the plaintiff to implead Gram Sabha and Union of India as parties to the suit? E. Whether the defendant no. 1 has a right to obstruct the installation of electricity poles and wires particularly in the manner he did? F. Whether on account of sealing of tube well, the plaintiff is disentitled to the grant of electricity supply?
The aforementioned questions are answered hereinafter. Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 15 of 41
A. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts from the
Court?
20. According to the defendant no.1, the plaintiff has withheld material facts from the court and is therefore not entitled to the exercise of discretion in his favour. The defendant no.1 has pointed out the following facts as having been suppressed by the plaintiff:
1. That the tube well for the running of which electricity connection had been sought has itself been sealed by the SDM.
2. That proceedings for cancellation of allotment of the plot are pending before the revenue authorities.
3. That the plaintiff was member of the resolution committee which had allotted the land to the plaintiff as an asami.
21. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, on the other hand, has denied the accusation of concealment of facts. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the tube well was sealed after institution of the suit and therefore he could disclose it in the plaint. It is further argued that the sealing of tube well has been challenged by him before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is further argued that the allotment of land by the resolution committee and the membership of the plaintiff of the panchayat as well as pendency of proceedings for cancellation of allotment were not required to be disclosed by the plaintiff.
Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 16 of 41
22. This is a suit for injunction. Injunction is a discretionary relief. It is an equitable remedy and a person who does not come to court with clean hands is not entitled to this remedy. A person claiming injunction must therefore disclose all material facts. In order to establish that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts, the defendant no. 1 is required to demonstrate that the plaintiff has withheld material information known to him. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Swarn Kanta Mehra Vs. Vinay Mahendra 1995(2) AIRCJ 537 that silence or non disclosure of facts which are not required by law to be disclosed does not amount to misrepresentation so as to disentitle the applicant to grant of relief.
23. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has not mentioned about the sealing of tube well, his membership of the panchayat/committee which allotted the land and pendency of proceedings for cancellation of allotment. The issue before the court is whether these facts are material for deciding the case and therefore were required to be disclosed. It would then have to be examined whether the plaintiff was aware of those facts at the time of institution of the suit and whether he deliberately withheld this information. Factum of sealing of tube well.
24. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that sealing of tube well took place after institution of the suit. The pleadings reveal that the defendant Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 17 of 41 no.1 has not raised this contention of sealing of tube well in the written statement. Since this objection was not taken in the written statement, the plaintiff had no occasion to respond to it in the replication. As the said objection of the defendant which has been verbally argued did not form part of pleadings, it did not become a disputed question of fact and no evidence was led by the parties on this point. Hence, there is nothing on record to establish the date on which the tube well was sealed and whether the plaintiff was aware of this fact before institution of the suit. Significantly, the defendant did not question the plaintiff/PW2 during crossexamination about the date of sealing of tubewell and the date on which the plaintiff became aware of the said fact. Since the objection of concealment of facts has been raised by the defendant, the burden was upon him to elicit facts to support this averment. Yet, neither in the crossexamination of PW2 nor in the deposition of defendant/DW1 nor by any other evidence, was this brought out. The plaintiff cannot be condemned for falsehood in absence of the precise date of sealing and in absence of any evidence to show that the plaintiff was aware of the sealing prior to institution of the suit. Further, the act of sealing of tubewell being under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it cannot be assumed that the plaintiff would never need electricity supply. Moreover, by the present suit, the issue before the court is not whether plaintiff is in need of electricity supply or in what manner he would use it but whether the defendant is entitled to hinder the supply. It is Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 18 of 41 not the case of the defendant that the plaintiff should not be provided electricity supply because the latter does not genuinely need it. Nor has the defendant claimed the right to obstruct the installation of poles from this assertion. This is not even the defence of the defendant. It has not been pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that he is seeking supply of electricity solely to run the tubewell for this Court to assume that by sealing of tubewell the purpose of seeking electricity has been defeated or frustrated. The purpose for which electricity is needed is irrelevant in the present suit and the court has no power to inquire into the same. How the electricity supplied would be put to use by the plaintiff is inconsequential and is no ground to deprive the plaintiff to electricity supply. It is the choice of plaintiff as to how he wishes to use electricity, provided it is used for an authorized purpose. Whether it is so utilized is a question to be examined after electricity connection is granted and the very grant of electricity connection cannot be stymied on the assumption that it would not be property utilized. Since the purpose for which electricity is needed has no bearing on the suit, and since the plaintiff cannot be deprived of electricity on account of sealing of tube well, there was no obligation upon the plaintiff to disclose this fact.
Factum of pendency of proceedings for cancellation of allotment.
25. According to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff has deliberately Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 19 of 41 concealed the fact that proceedings are pending before revenue authorities for cancellation of allotment of plot. The defendant No.1 has however not adduced any evidence, and has not questioned the plaintiff/PW2 during crossexamination, to show the date on which the said proceedings were initiated and the date on which the plaintiff became aware of their pendency. Until it is affirmatively proved that the said proceedings were initiated prior to institution of the suit and the plaintiff was aware of this fact at the time of filing the suit, the plaintiff cannot be faulted for not disclosing this fact. Since there is no evidence to this effect, the plaintiff cannot be stated to have deliberately concealed this fact. Further, this is not a material fact which could influence the decision of the suit. The mere pendency of the said proceedings do not imply that the plaintiff has no right or interest in the suit property. It is only after the said proceedings culminate into such a decision and when the decision attains finality can such inference be drawn. That stage not having reached, at this juncture, the plaintiff cannot be branded as a trespasser and he cannot be deprived of electricity supply. Hence, the mere pendency of such proceedings for cancellation of allotment would not affect the decision of the suit and for this reason the plaintiff was under no obligation to plead this fact. Further, the grievance of the plaintiff was not that the defendant had cast doubt on his title. Rather, reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff was not even aware of the precise motive or objective of the defendant No. 1 in obstructing installation Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 20 of 41 of the electricity poles. The issue of title of the plaintiff apparently came up for adjudication only after the written statement was filed by the defendant. Similarly, the evidence on record does not show that while hindering installation of poles, the defendant No. 1 had been challenging right of the plaintiff to occupy the suit property. That being the case, the plaintiff had no opportunity to foresee or anticipate this plea and therefore was not under any obligation to plead regarding pendency of any proceeding to challenge the allotment of the plot. Hence, the plaintiff cannot be nonsuited for his failure to disclose the said fact.
Factum of membership of the plaintiff of the panchayat/committee which allotted the land.
26. That the plaintiff was a member of the resolution committee which allotted the land in favour of the plaintiff is the assertion of the defendant. It is the defence of the defendant that the plaintiff was wrongfully allotted the land and that therefore the plaintiff has no right to continue in its occupation. This is however not the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in the plaint, founded his case on his being an asami and on his occupational rights. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant has no right to impede the grant of electricity connection. The plaintiff, at that time, cannot be expected to foresee the defence that the defendant might raise. The plaintiff is therefore not required to prophetically disclose facts to counter Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 21 of 41 every conceivable argument that the defence might raise. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to state that he was an allottee of the suit property. Whether the said allotment was in accordance with law or not is the challenge raised by the defendant and is not part of the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore had no occasion to state as to whether he was member of the resolution committee or not.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff cannot be held guilty of suppression of material facts. The said ground raised by the defendant no.1 is rejected.
B. Whether this Court is competent to grant the reliefs prayed for in view of provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act?
28. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 has argued that this court is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is submitted that the power of the court to try the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is further submitted that the remedy of the plaintiff lies not before this court but before revenue authorities under the Schedule I of the Act.
29. The jurisdiction of this Court is laid down under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 9 states as under:
"The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or implicitly barred".
Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 22 of 41
30. From the above provision, it follows that the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is of wide amplitude. The ouster of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. Such exclusion must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. The exclusionary clauses are to be narrowly construed. This is a settled proposition of law and was laid down in the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabhai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78. The same view was echoed in the case of Bismillah Vs. Janeshwar Prasad AIR 1990 SC 540.
31. Applying the aforementioned principle to the present case, it is indisputable that the jurisdiction of this Court can be ousted only if the remedy that the plaintiff is seeking is found to be available under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. This is also evident from the plain and clear language of Section 185 (1) of the said Act. Section 185 (1) reads as follows:
"Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof".
32. The abovementioned provision expressly states that cognizance of a suit by an ordinary Civil Court is barred only in respect of matters provided for in Schedule I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Hence the question that is required to be determined is whether the relief of permanent injunction that the plaintiff is seeking through the present suit is covered Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 23 of 41 under Schedule I of the said Act.
33. Scrutiny of Schedule I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 reveals that a suit for permanent injunction restraining interference in installation of electricity poles and supply lines is not covered by Schedule I of the said Act. There is no clause in the said schedule which provides for grant of such relief by any revenue authority. From the above, it appears that the suit for permanent injunction can be entertained by this Court and that the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. In holding so, I draw support from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tara Chand & Anr. Vs. Kumari Rajani Jain & Ors. 150 (2008) DLT 101. In that case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"Pertaining to agricultural land no remedy is available to a party before a revenue authority to seek a relief of injunction".
In case of Shri Ram vs. First Addl. District Judge AIR 2001 SC 1250, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the plaintiff did not require declaration of his title, a suit in a civil court for cancellation of sale deed was maintainable.
In the case of Bhupinder Singh Rekhi vs. C.S. Rekhi, 76 (1998) DLT 257, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that a suit before civil court is maintainable if the plaintiff has not claimed declaration of bhumidari rights.
In the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma (Shri) vs. Smt Seema Sethi & Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 24 of 41 Ors. 2009 II AD (DELHI) 782, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a civil suit challenging the execution of sale deed and permanent injunction restraining forcible dispossession of plaintiff is maintainable before a civil court and is not covered by Section 185 of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, in as much as the relief claimed by the plaintiff does not fall within the ambit of Schedule I of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, it is held that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit is not ousted by Section 185 of the said Act.
C. What is the status of the plaintiff in the suit property: whether he can be treated as an asami? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to electricity connection without obtaining prior permission of the SDM or Gram Sabha?
35. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the suit property was allotted to him and that asami rights have been bestowed on him. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he has already applied for being declared bhumidar and the said proceedings are pending before concerned revenue authorities. In support of his claim, the plaintiff has relied upon the certificate dated 25.09.1981 Ex. PW2/1 whereby he was allotted the land. The plaintiff has further pleaded that he is in continuous possession of the property since that day.
36. On the other hand, the contentions of the defendant no.1 as to the status of the plaintiff are outlined as under :
Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 25 of 41
a. That the plaintiff is not bhumidar of the suit property since he
has not been declared so and the proceedings initiated by him for this purpose are still pending.
b. That the plaintiff is not asami for the following reasons :
(i) The certificate dated 25.09.1981 is a forged document;
(ii) The allotment was obtained illegally since the plaintiff was member of the resolution committee which made the allotment and because he did not fulfill the qualifying conditions;
(iii) Proceedings for cancelling the allotment are pending.
c. That the suit property belongs to the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiff is a trespasser therein.
The aforementioned contentions of the defendant no.1 are dealt with hereunder.
Whether the plaintiff is bhumidar of the suit property
37. The plaintiff has, in the plaint, not claimed to be bhumidar of the suit property. His name has not been shown as bhumidar in the revenue record i.e. khatoni Ex. PW2/2 relied upon by the plaintiff or in the khasra girdawari Ex. DW1/1 relied upon by the defendant no.1. This court is not competent to declare bhumidari rights and the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such prayers lies with the revenue authorities under Schedule I of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Revenue records must be taken to be determinative of Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 26 of 41 bhumidari rights. These records are conclusive and must be followed by civil courts, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Phoolwati & Ors Vs. Ram Dei & Ors. 150(2008) DLT 105 in the following words:
"If one is aggrieved by the entries in Revenue record, the remedy is provided under Delhi Land Reforms Act for correction of record, for regaining possession, for ejectment of transfer, etc. The Civil Court is not only barred from entertaining such claims, but is bound to honour the revenue records as correct".
38. Since the revenue records do not show the plaintiff as bhumidar, he cannot be recognized as such by this court. Further, proceedings initiated by the plaintiff for being declared bhumidar are stated to be pending and have not yet culminated in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff cannot be held to be entitled to bhumidari rights. This observation however shall not influence or prejudice the proceedings pending before revenue authorities for declaring bhumidari rights which ought to be decided on their own merits.
Whether the plaintiff is asami of the suit property
39. The plaintiff has claimed to be asami in the suit property on the strength of certificate of allotment dated 25.08.1981 Ex. PW2/1. The said certificate of allotment confers asami rights upon the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff is further bolstered by the khatoni Ex. PW2/2 which shows that he is asami in the suit property. The name of the plaintiff also figures in the Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 27 of 41 girdawari Ex. DW1/1 filed and relied upon by the defendant. As demonstrated above, the said entry in the revenue records is binding on this court as to the status of the plaintiff. Hence, on the basis of records, it can safely be inferred that the plaintiff is asami in the suit property.
40. The defendant no.1 has questioned the genuineness of the certificate dated 25.09.1981 Ex. PW2/1 and has stated in the written statement that it is a forged document. However, the defendant no.1 has failed to support this assertion by any evidence whatsoever. Nor has the defendant no.1 questioned the witnesses of the plaintiff regarding the genuineness of the said document. On the other hand, the plaintiff has proved the veracity of the document Ex. PW2/1 not only by his own testimony but also by that of Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, Office of Block Development Officer who appeared as PW1 and deposed that the suit property had been allotted in favour of the plaintiff by resolution dated 25.08.1981. The defendant has failed to place on record any document to establish that the suit property has been allotted in favour of some person other than the plaintiff. No circumstances have been brought on record which could create doubt on the genuineness of the certificate of allotment Ex. PW2/1. It is therefore concluded that the certificate of allotment dated 25.09.1981 Ex. PW2/1 is not a forged or fabricated document.
41. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 has submitted that the resolution for allotment of land was passed by the Gram Panchayat after accepting bribe Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 28 of 41 from the plaintiff. It is pointed out that the defendant no.1 has deposed in his crossexamination that the resolution was passed by the committee upon taking bribe.
42. Perusal of the entire crossexamination of defendant no. 1 negates this plea. In his further crossexamination itself, defendant no.1/DW1 has stated that he has no proof to support his allegation of bribery. In absence of proof, the said allegation is a mere speculation and is without any substance or force. The resolution cannot be held to be tainted on the basis of vague or loose allegations. Every administrative process is deemed to have been lawfully performed. Where serious allegations of bribery are made, they need to be supported by material and any absence thereof, no credence can be attached to them. It is worthy to note that the defendant no. 1 has made such allegations only during his crossexamination. He omitted to mention such allegations either in the written statement or in his examinationinchief wherein too he was assailing the validity of the allotment resolution. The plea appears to be an afterthought. Since DW1 has himself admitted in his crossexamination he has no proof to support the allegation of bribery, such contention cannot be relied upon to strike down the allotment resolution which has been holding the field for last more than three decades.
43. The defendant no.1 has challenged the manner in which the plaintiff secured allotment of the suit property. According to the defendant no.1, the Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 29 of 41 plaintiff was member of the committee which made the allotment. It is also urged by the defendant No. 1 that the certificate was obtained in violation of allotment rules and regulations since the plaintiff was neither a landless person nor an exserviceman at the time of allotment and it is only the said categories of persons who are entitled to allotment of land.
44. This contention of the defendant no.1 does not hold merit. In case the allotment in favour of the plaintiff was illegal, it ought to have been challenged in accordance with law. However, till the said allotment is assailed and till the said challenge succeeds and the allotment is set aside, the plaintiff continuous to remain in occupation of the suit property as its asami. A finding on the manner of allotment or the qualifications of the plaintiff cannot be given by this court and whether the plaintiff is entitled to continue as asami or not is a matter that rests within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities. Proceedings for cancellation of allotment are stated to be pending. However they have not yet been decided and have not attained finality. Till the said proceedings are decided against the plaintiff, the presumption remains that the plaintiff was lawfully allotted the said land and continues as its asami. This shall however not be deemed to imply that the said proceedings for cancellation of allotment ought to be decided in favour of the plaintiff or against him. The said proceedings must continue without being influenced by any observation made herein. By this order the status of the plaintiff in the suit property is being determined only Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 30 of 41 till the culmination of the said proceedings before the revenue authorities. The status of the plaintiff depends on the final outcome of those proceedings and may change as per their decision. This order shall therefore only decide the position that the plaintiff holds till the conclusion of those proceedings.
45. It is clear from the above that the plaintiff continues to be asami in the suit property and must be treated as such.
Who is the owner of the suit property
46. According to the defendant no.1, it is the Gaon Sabha which is the owner of the suit property. This fact has not been disputed by the plaintiff. PW1 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, BDO Office has deposed in his crossexamination that the suit property belongs to the Gaon Sabha. The plaintiff/PW2 has also admitted in his crossexamination that the land is owned by the Gaon Sabha. Hence, it is amply clear that the suit property is owned by the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiff is its asami.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to electricity connection without obtaining prior permission of the SDM or Gram Sabha
47. It has already been concluded above that the suit property is owned by the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiff is an asami therein. It is therefore required to be examined whether the plaintiff, in this capacity, is entitled to obtain electricity connection without prior permission of the SDM or Gaon Sabha which, in the instant case, has not been obtained. Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 31 of 41
48. In this behalf, reference may be made to Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which lays down as under:
"Save as otherwise provided in this Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply".
The aforementioned provision casts an obligation upon the supplier of electricity to provide electricity connection on the application of either the owner or the occupier of the property. It is clear from the provision that it is not only the owner but also the occupier who is entitled to electricity supply in his own name. A bona fide occupier of the property can therefore not be denied a basic amenity like electricity supply.
Reference may also be made to the case of M.K. Acharya Vs. C.M.D, W.B. State Electricity Distribution Co. AIR 2008 Cal. 47. In that case, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that a permissive occupier or a licensee is entitled to grant of electricity connection. It was emphasized that the supply of electricity is a basic necessity and that the right to obtain electricity is part of the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
49. The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 had been enacted with a view to abolish the zamindari system and to usher in socioeconomic reforms. The concept of ownership hitherto prevailing was brought to an end and in its place tenures and subtenures were created. A subtenure holder is known Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 32 of 41 as asami. The category of asami is well recognized by the law, under sections 4 and 6 of the said Act. An asami cannot be equated with a trespasser. An asami is a bona fide occupier of the property. He is conferred with statutory rights over the property. One such right is to exclusively possess and use the land for the purpose of agriculture, as laid down by Section 22 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. When a particular right is conferred upon a person by the law, he is deemed to have been bestowed with all ancillary entitlements too which are required for effectively exercising the said right. Where the right to perform agriculture is granted, it cannot be stated that the said person does not have the right to electricity supply which is essential for agriculture and irrigation. If such a narrow interpretation is drawn, it would negate and frustrate the right of agriculture expressly conferred by the statute.
50. The rights of asami being statutory recognized, would deem to include the right to obtain the electricity supply. It is therefore concluded that an asami is a bona fide occupier of the suit property who can apply for and obtain electricity connection without first obtaining the permission of Gaon Sabha or SubDivisional Magistrate.
51. In the present case, however, this question has remained only academic since, according to the plaintiff, the supplier of electricity (defendant no.2) has already considered the application of the plaintiff and has sanctioned electricity connection. This fact has been unequivocally Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 33 of 41 pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint and has been reiterated by him in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. No evidence to the contrary has been brought out by the defendants. The said sanction of electricity by defendant no.2 has not been challenged by the defendant no.1. The question that therefore requires consideration is not whether the application for electricity connection was in order but whether the electricity connection, once sanctioned and not challenged, can be obstructed by the defendant no.1. D. Whether the suit is barred on account of the failure of the plaintiff to implead Gram Sabha and Union of India as parties to the suit?
52. According to the defendant no.1, the suit is not maintainable since the plaintiff has omitted to implead Gaon Sabha and Union of India as parties to the suit.
53. The plaint is perused. It is pleaded in the plaint that an electricity connection was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and when for that purpose electricity poles were being installed, the defendant no.1 tried to obstruct this process. The plaintiff has prayed for injunction to restrain the defendant no.1 from causing such interference.
54. According to the plaintiff, it is defendant no.1 alone who has been creating such hindrance. Hence injunction has also been prayed for against defendant no.1 alone. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the Gaon Sabha or the Union of India have been causing an impediment in the installation of Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 34 of 41 poles or laying of wires. As a result, there was no need for the plaintiff to implead them as a party to the suit.
55. It is the choice of the plaintiff as to against who he wishes to proceed and from who he wishes to claim his relief. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead a specific person or entity as a party to the suit or to pray for relief against him.
56. Injunction is a personal relief. It does not affect persons other than those injuncted or restrained. In case the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, it is only the defendant no.1 and none other who would be restrained and affected by the decree.
57. Since the plaintiff has, through the present suit not raised any issue of title, the Gaon Sabha or Union of India would also not be affected by the decision passed in the case. The presence of Gaon Sabha or Union of India would not in any manner facilitate a complete or effective adjudication of the dispute. Nor can it be said that without their presence, the dispute in question cannot be adjudicated. The Gaon Sabha or Union of India are therefore not necessary parties to the suit.
In the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal 2005(4) J.T. 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings, (2) no effective decree can be Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 35 of 41 passed in the absence of such party".
58. None of the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled in the present case. In the result, I find no merit in the contention of the defendant no.1 that the Gaon Sabha or Union of India are necessary parties or that owing to the failure of the plaintiff to implead them the suit is barred by non joinder of necessary parties.
E. Whether the defendant no. 1 has a right to obstruct the installation of electricity poles and wires particularly in the manner he did?
59. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and is therefore not entitled to obstruct the installation of electricity poles and laying of wires.
60. On the other hand, the case of the defendant no.1 is that although, he has no right in the suit property, he being a villager and a public spirited individual is entitled to obstruct the installation of poles and wires since the plaintiff has not been granted electricity connection in accordance with law.
61. As already held above, the plaintiff is entitled to electricity connection. Hence, the defendant has no right to obstruct the installation of electricity poles and laying of wires. The contentions advanced by the defendant no.1 and the reasons furnished by him on account of which he had been causing such interference have been rejected by this Court. The Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 36 of 41 defendant no.1 appears to be causing unjustified interference in the performance of official duties by the employees of defendant no.2. However, even if it is assumed that the plaintiff was not entitled to electricity supply and had been illegally granted electricity connection, the proper course for the defendant would have been to challenge the grant of electricity connection by lawful means, that is by recourse to a court of law. The defendant is not entitled to physically obstruct the installation of electricity poles or laying of wires. If he is aggrieved by any action of the public authority, he must approach the court of law to restrain it.
62. Further, the defendant has admitted in his crossexamination that he does not have any right in the suit property. If that is so, he would not be affected by the supply of electricity. The plaintiff cannot claim to be aggrieved by the installation of electricity poles and laying of wires. Since his rights are not affected by such action, he has no locus standi to obstruct this process.
63. It is concluded that the defendant has no right to obstruct the installation of electricity poles and wires.
F. Whether on account of sealing of tube well, the plaintiff is disentitled to the grant of electricity supply?
64. According to the defendant no.1, the plaintiff is not entitled to the grant of electricity supply since the tubewell for the running of which Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 37 of 41 electricity supply was been sought has itself been sealed.
65. This objection raised by the defendant no.1 during final arguments does not form part of the pleadings. He has not mentioned about this fact in the written statement. Such new pleas having no basis in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be canvassed. Further, since the act of sealing of tubewell is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it would not be safe to conclude that it has attained finality. Axiomatically, it cannot be presumed that the plaintiff would never need electricity supply. Moreover, this Court is not competent to inquire into the motive for which electricity has been applied for. Such inquiry would be beyond the domain of the pleadings and is irrelevant to the issues presented by the suit. By the present suit, the issue before the court is not whether the plaintiff is in need of electricity supply but whether the defendant is entitled to hinder the supply. The defendant has not pleaded that he is interfering with the installation of poles because the plaintiff is not in bonafide need of electricity. Therefore there is no requirement to determine this. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he is seeking supply of electricity solely to run the tubewell. This Court cannot consequently presume that electricity was being sought only for this purpose and that since the said purpose has been defeated the need for electricity has come to an end. The purpose for which electricity would be used is a matter for the consideration of the supplier of electricity and is not relevant for this suit. This Court cannot Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 38 of 41 weigh the need of the plaintiff or to decide, for him, that he no longer needs it. The plaintiff is under no obligation to disclose how greatly he needs electricity as a condition precedent to the installation of poles. If he has a legal right to have poles installed, the mere fact that he may not need electricity is no ground to restrain the installation. The purpose for which electricity is needed being irrelevant to the suit, the sealing of tubewell is no ground to refuse grant of injunction.
Grant of injunction
66. Having decided the objections raised by the defendant no. 1, it is examined whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction sought by him. The plaintiff has already been held to be an asami in the suit property. It has also been held above that in this capacity the plaintiff is entitled to electricity supply. The application for electricity supply has, according to the plaintiff, already been allowed. The sanction of electricity supply has not been challenged. The proceedings for cancellation of allotment of the suit property to the plaintiff have not been decided against the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be branded as a trespasser at this stage. Yet, even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is not entitled to continue as asami, it is undeniable that so far the plaintiff has not been ejected from the suit property. He has been continuing in occupation of the suit property since the last three decades. The said possession is on the strength of an Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 39 of 41 allotment. The possession is permissive in character. The plaintiff is entitled to protect his settled possession until he is removed in accordance with law. Possession needs to be wholesome and effective. For this purpose, supply of electricity is indispensable. The plaintiff is willing to, and has already undertaken to, pay the dues of electricity supplied to him. There is therefore no reason to deprive the plaintiff of electricity supply. It follows therefrom that the defendant no.1 is also not entitled to obstruct the laying of poles and wires for such supply. A right exists in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 is trying to infringe upon the said right. To prevent the breach of the said obligation, injunction ought to be issued. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the grant of injunction to restrain the defendant and his representatives from interfering in the installation of poles and laying of wires in the suit property. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.2 "
Relief"
67. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1. A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant no. 1, his agents, servants, associates and representatives from interfering in the installation of electricity poles and supply lines by officials of defendant no. 2 in the land measuring 4 bighas and 8 biswas in Khasra No. 18/11 in the Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 40 of 41 revenue estate of village Kharkhari Nahar, Najafgarh, New Delhi110043.
68. The defendant no. 1 shall, however, be at liberty to initiate and pursue proceedings before the competent fora for challenging the sanction of electricity connection in favour of the plaintiff, if any. The observations made in this judgment shall not influence the proceedings pending before the Revenue Authorities for declaration of bhumidari rights in favour of the plaintiff or proceedings for cancellation of allotment of suit property to the plaintiff. This judgment shall also not be construed as a direction to the defendant no. 2 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to sanction electricity connection in favour of the plaintiff or to install electricity poles or lay wires. Further, the Revenue Authorities would be at liberty to eject the plaintiff from the suit property in the event of him being found to be not entitled to occupy it and the observations made herein shall not be construed as a restriction on the said right of the said authorities.
69. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to recover costs of the suit from defendant no. 1. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on
September 30, 2011 (Ashish Aggarwal)
Civil JudgeI, South West District,
Dwarka Courts, Delhi
Dharam Pal Vs. Jagdish Singh & Anr..
CS No.296/11 41 of 41