Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr. Syed Hasan Isfahani, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court had denied interim protection on the ground that the suit property on demarcation was not found to be located in Khasra No.1151/3 (Min.), but rather in Khasra No. 216. However, the respondent No.1/DDA had claimed that the suit property fell in Khasra No.217 and that was acquired land and, therefore, they had a right to remove the encroachments, but the demarcation report completely falsified their stand. Learned counsel further submitted that once it was clear that the suit property did not fall in Khasra No.217 which was acquired land, respondent No.1/DDA could not interfere with the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff in another Khasra number whether it be 216 or 1151/3 (Min.). Since the petitioner/plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property for a very long period, from the time of his forefathers, the petitioner/plaintiff was entitled to a protection of his possession till the suit was decided.

9. Before the learned Trial Court, the specific relief of permanent injunction had been sought by the petitioner/plaintiff only against the defendant No.1, respondent No.1/DDA to restrain them from illegally dispossessing the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property. This plaint was filed in October, 2012, and almost 9 years later, the suit is still at the stage of disposal of an interim application. Be that as it may, a perusal of the orders passed by the learned Trial Court explains the reason why there was so much delay. Even before the learned Trial Court, respondent No.1/DDA had relied on a demarcation report but the learned Trial Court did not accept the same, observing that Khasra No.1151/3 and Khasra No.217 were written by hand and not digitally as was done in the rest of the plan. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court found it appropriate vide its order dated 19th August, 2014, to direct that a fresh demarcation be carried out by the concerned SDM in respect of Khasra No.1151/3, Khasra No.217, as also the location of the suit property i.e., house of the petitioner/plaintiff, as described by him i.e., T-35/10, Ward No.8, Pankhe Wali Masjid, Mehrauli. This demarcation report was submitted to the court, after which, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, was taken up for disposal.

10. The learned Trial Court declined to grant interim protection and vacated the status quo order for the reasons that the petitioner/plaintiff had not filed on record a single document of ownership or possession of the suit property while claiming to have been in possession thereof since the time of his forefathers; the measurement of the house was not given in either the plaint or the site plan annexed to the plaint; the notification produced by him was not duly certified from the concerned authority; the coloured photographs did not identify the suit property as being in possession of the petitioner/ plaintiff and the demarcation report clearly showed that the suit property did not fall in Khasra No.1151/3, Mehrauli.

14. In the instant case, the suit has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, as noticed above, for an injunction only against the respondent No.1/DDA. The respondent No.1/DDA has claimed ownership of the property in question and described the petitioner/plaintiff as an encroacher. The respondent No.2/DWB has described the petitioner/plaintiff as an unauthorized occupant. The petitioner/ plaintiff has claimed to be owner in adverse possession as against the respondent No.2/DWB, while also claiming that since 2010, an application had been filed by him to respondent No.2/DWB to treat him as a tenant. No declaration has been sought against respondent No.2/DWB. Thus the petitioner/plaintiff, from the side of both the respondents is someone without any right to remain in possession of the suit property. He has not been able to prima facie show that he has legally entered into the property and has a right to remain in the said premises. The demarcation report included the determination of the location of the suit premises. Modern methods of TSM has been used to demarcate the land. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff that the suit premises fall in Khasra No.1151/3 (Min.) has been found incorrect.