Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. In replication to the written statement of defendant no. 2, plaintiff denied that he had not challenged the acquisition proceedings before the LAC. The contentions of the written statement were denied and those of the plaint reiterated.

10. Upon completion of the pleadings on 17.05.2007 the following issues were framed­

1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPD

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice U/s 53B of DD Act? OPD

24. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, issues 1, 3 & 4 are decided against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice U/s 53B of DD Act? OPD

25. I note that the defendant no. 2 has not taken the objection of statutory notice U/s 53B of the Delhi Development Act in the written statement and has contested the suit on merits throughout. In addition, the plaintiff's suit is one for grant of injunctions and though Section 53B (1) provides for notice to be served of suits against the DDA & its officials however Section 53B (3) provides an exception where the only relief claimed is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by giving notice or postponing the institution of the suit. The suit having been contested on merits & the plaintiff's suit being one for injunctions only apart from the fact that defendant impliedly waived the statutory notice by not raising any objection on that ground, I hold that the suit is not barred U/s 53B of DD Act for want of notice. Issue decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 5. Relief