Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10 It is clear from the order dated 18.05.2005 that Hon'ble High Court had granted 15 days' time to the plaintiff to file letters, requests or application before the Nodal Officer and in case Nodal Officer rejected any application for allotment, it was open for the concerned party to seek substantive relief in appropriate proceedings. Plaintiff or any other legal heir CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 13/52 of late Heera Singh have not approached the Nodal Officer for adjudication of their alleged claim if they had any grievance and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief from this court. That name of Smt. Sita Singh was mutated in the revenue record on 18.10.1965 in respect of land bearing khasra no. 1258/2 admeasuring 1 bigha 17 biswa on the basis of sale deed executed by the predecessor of the plaintiff namely Sh. Heera Singh and Sh. Ghasi Ram. After 18.10.1965 to 25.08.2003 Smt. Sita Sigh was shown as the recorded owner of the suit land in revenue record. After 25.08.2003, defendant no.1 is shown as recorded owner of the suit land. In Naksha Muntazamin, name of Smt. Sita Singh is shown in respect of the entire land admeasuring 1 bigh 17 biswa of khasra no. 1258/2. The LAC also assessed compensation of the entire land in the name of Smt. Sita Singh. The plaintiff has not filed any document alongwith the suit which show that after 18.10.1965, either name of his predecessor or name of the plaintiff is shown in the record maintained by the authority. Till date, no person has challenged the sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Sita Singh and mutation order dated 18.10.1965. The allegations levelled in the plaint are based on assumptions and presumptions which do not give any right or cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that under the garb of the present suit, the plaintiff is also challenging the mutation order by which the land in question was mutated in favour of Smt. Sita Singh and also challenged the mutation order dated 25.08.2003 by which the land in question was mutated in favour of defendant no.1 but this court has no jurisdiction to CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 14/52 decide this issue on the ground of subject matter as well as limitation. 11 In the present suit, the plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed dated 22.04.1964 registered on 29.04.1964 executed and got registered by the predecessor of the plaintiff in favour of Smt. Sita Singh. Without challenging the sale deed dated 22.04.1964, plaintiff cannot challenge the Will executed by Smt. Sita Singh in favour of defendant no.1. The suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. The value of suit property is more than Rs.50 lacs and plaintiff has illegally and arbitrarily valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees at Rs.200/- only. Therefore, suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (c) CPC.

12 Suit of the plaintiff is also hit by provisions of Section 41 H, I and J of Specific Relief Act. It is relevant to point out that before filing of the present suit, legal heir of late Sh. Mange Ram, son of Late Heera Singh i.e. Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Sh. Mange Ram, Pradeep and Mahipal Singh sons of late Sh. Mange Ram also filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant no.1 whereby they sought the declaration against the Will dated 15.11.1990 and mutation order dated 25.08.2003 and said suit was registered as 133/2005 titled as Kamla Devi & Ors. Vs Iqbal Singh & Ors. In the said suit, defendant no.1 has also filed WS and disclosed all the correct facts and Smt. Kamla Devi and others after receiving copy of WS filed by defendant no.1 chose not to appear before the Court and suit was CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 15/52 dismissed on 27.02.2006. Thereafter, they have not filed any application for restoration of the said suit. The legal heirs of late Mange Ram son of Late Heera Singh i.e. Smt. Kamla Devi, Pradeep and Mahipal Singh also filed an appeal bearing no. 28/05 before the Deputy commissioner where they challenged the mutation order dated 25.08.2003. The said appeal was also dismissed on 31.08.2005. After dismissal of the said appeal, they have not challenged the order dated 31.08.2005 before any authority or court. Therefore, the mutation order dated 31.08.2005 has become final and plaintiff has no right to challenge the same. 13 In the present case, award was passed in 1987 and LAC also assessed the compensation in the name of Smt. Sita Singh. Plaintiff never challenged the said award. Award has now become final and same cannot be challenged before this court. Plaintiff never filed any claim for payment of compensation before LAC or before any court. Hon'ble High Court also laid down certain guidelines for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land and the plaintiff or his LRs or LR of plaintiff brothers do not fall within the said category. Suit of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation. In the garb of the present suit, plaintiff is also challenging the sale deed which was executed by his predecessors namely Sh. Heera Singh and Sh. Ghasi Ram in 1964 and on the basis of said sale deed, mutation of entire suit property was recorded in the name of Smt. Sita Singh and said facts are within the knowledge of the plaintiff since beginning. After expiry of 42 years, plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deed.

39 PW3 Jai Kumar, Judicial Assistant, Record Room Civil was examined but not cross examined. His testimony is not material to decide the issues of the case.

40 Testimony of PW4 Sh. Manoj Gupta is also not relevant to the issues of the case.

41 Testimony of PW5 is also not relevant.

42 Thereafter, Sh. Inder Singh Dahiya, advocate was examined as the next plaintiff witness and he was wrongly labeled as PW5. He deposed that a suit no. 246/1989 titled as Ghasi Ram & Ors. Vs Shish Pal & Ors. was filed by him on behalf of the plaintiff. Sh. P.S. Sharma advocate was appointed as local commissioner and he was the attorney on record/counsel for the plaintiffs in that suit. He deposed that he was present at the time of inspection proceedings on 30.05.1989 and his signatures are at Point A on inspection report Mark R. 43 Thereafter, defendant examined himself by way of evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. In his evidence affidavit, he deposed on the same lines as that of his written statement. Copy of sale deed dated 22.04.1964 was exhibited. Khatoni for the year 1964-65 issued on 25.04.1986 already on record as Ex.PW-1/1 was also referred to. He deposed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP no. 5258/2003 titled as Iqbal Singh vs CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 37/52 International Airport authority of India & Anr. passed an order dated 05.11.2003 directing that the petitioner Iqbal Singh is liable to be included in the draw of lots in view of the directions passed vide order dated 29.10.2003 in CWP No. 481/1982. That the Hon'ble high Court in CM (Main) no. 249/2007 vide order dated 30.05.2007 clearly held that the civil court ought not to have entertained suits filed by the persons who have never filed a claim before the Nodal Officer. Hon'ble High Court also held that jurisdiction of the civil court already stands curtailed in the matter where land stands acquired under Land Acquisition Act. It was further held that the trial court will in future desist from entertaining such suits relating to land of village Nangal Dewat which have been the subject matter of acquisition for the purposes of airport extension. He deposed that from the pleadings of the present suit as well as the successive suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant no.1, it is clear that at the time of filing the said suit, plaintiff was in a position to seek the relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 22.04.1964. The present suit is also barred by limitation. From the pleadings of the previous litigations filed by the plaintiff, it is clear that the father, mother and brother of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff had clear knowledge of the sale deed since the beginning. Land Acquisition Collector made the award no. 16/86-87 in 1986 and assessed the compensation of the entire suit land in the name of Smt. Sita Singh. In the present suit, plaintiff has also filed a copy of the revenue document issued to the plaintiff on 25.04.1986 Ex.PW-1/1-2 where the fact of sale deed in question and the CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 38/52 mutation order dated 18.10.1965 is clearly mentioned. Therefore, plaintiff cannot challenge the sale deed after 43 years of execution and registration of the same. Suit filed by the plaintiff is also barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 as the suit land was governed by the provisions of the said act and admittedly the plaintiff is not a recorded bhumidar of the suit land. In the garb of present suit, plaintiff is also seeking bhumidari rights of the suit land which is not permissible. Since defendant no.1 deponent is the legal and recorded owner/bhumidar of the suit property, therefore, plaintiff has no locus standi or right to seek any declaration and injunction against the deponent. Till date plaintiff has not challenged the bhumidari rights of the deponent. Before seeking the relief of declaration and injunction, plaintiff is required to challenge the bhumidari of the deponent and after getting bhumidari rights in his favour, plaintiff can seek the relief of declaration and injunction against the deponent. Plaintiff has no locus to challenge the legality and validity of sale deed dated 22.04.1964 Ex. DW-1/1 and the Will dated 15.11.1990 Ex. DW-1/7 executed by Smt. Sita Singh in favour of the deponent. Plaintiff is neither a blood relation of Smt. Sita Singh nor has any other relation with her in any manner which may confer any right in his favour in respect of the estate left behind by late Smt. Sita Singh. After acquisition of the suit land, neither the revenue court nor the civil court has any jurisdiction over the subject matter. Only remedy available with the plaintiff was to file a claim under Section 30/31 of Land Acquisition Act. Alleged compromise dated 30.01.1990 is hit by CS No. 14268/16 Baljeet Singh vs Iqbal Singh/DDA 39/52 provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act. It is submitted that the alleged order dated 30.01.1990 creates a right in favour of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff and in the absence of registration of the same, this court cannot look into and rely upon the same. The legal heirs of late Sh. Mange Ram son of late Sh. Hira Singh i.e. Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Sh. Mange Ram, Pradeep and Mahipal sons of late Sh. Mange Ram also filed an appeal no. 28/05 before the Deputy Commissioner, South West, Delhi in which they challenged the mutation order dated 25.08.2003. Said appeal was dismissed on 31.08.2005 and the said dismissal has not been challenged before any authority or court. Therefore, the mutation order dated 31.08.2005 has become final and plaintiff has no right to challenge the same. Certified copy of abovementioned order dated 31.08.2005 is Ex. DW-1/13. Till 31.07.2007 when the Land Acquisition Collector took possession of the suit land, the same was in possession of the deponent. Copy of Ration card of deponent at the address of the suit property is on record and is Ex. DW- 1/14. The property was also assessed by the MCD for house tax in the name of deponent. Due to delay in handing over the possession of plot no. B-95 in lieu of the suit land, the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Project division also gave an amount of Rs.51,000/- as rent by issuing a cheque dated 13.08.2007 in favour of the deponent. Copy of cheque is Mark B. 44 DW1 was cross examined and relevant extracts of his cross examination are as follows:-

50 Thereafter, Sh. Kailash Kumar, Kanungo at LAC Branch, District New Delhi was examined as DW6. His evidence also is not relevant for deciding the issues.

51 Thereafter, Sh. Omvir Kanungo SDM, Vasant Vihar was examined as DW-7. He deposed that mutation order dated 25.08.2003 has been passed on the basis of Will in favour of Iqbal Singh. He has no personal knowledge as to who was present at the time of mutation. 52 Thereafter, Sh. Dharmender Dagar was examined as DW8. He deposed that the Kanungo LAC has attested the document Ex. DW-8/1 and Ex. DW-8/2 which are the survey report of the year 1972 and copy of naksha muntazamin respectively. He deposed that it is correct that the survey report is in Urdu language and he was unable to tell as to who is the owner of the said khasra number.