Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. No evidence has been led on this issue either by the plaintiffs or defendant.

8. It has been argued on behalf of the defendant that no notice as contemplated U/s 53 B of DD Act was given by the plaintiffs before filing of the suit, therefore, present suit is not maintainable.

9. On the other hand, ld Ld counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that no such notice was required because the suit is basically for the relief of injunction which is of urgent nature and if the notice had been given the very purpose of the suit would have been defeated.

10. U/s 53 B(1) of DD Act, suit against DDA can not be instituted unless a notice stating the cause of action and the particulars mentioned in the said section is given by the plaintiffs to the DDA before filing the suit. However, sub section 3 is in the nature of exception to this general rule. According to this section provisions of section 53B(1) would not apply to suit in which only relief claimed is an injunction of which object would be defeated by giving of a notice or the postponment of institution of the suit.

11. In the present suit, only relief claimed is a relief of injunction. The DDA had taken possession and according to the plaintiffs was obstructing the alleged right to way of the plaintiffs. Certainly if the notice had been given, the very purpose of the suit would have been defeated. Therefore, I am of the view that in view of section 53 B (3) of the DD Act, suit is not bad on account of absence of notice U/s 53B (1) of the said Act. This issue is accordingly decided.

15. On the other hand, DW-1 Sh Raj Kumar Yadav, Patwari, SEZ, DDA, New Delhi in his affidavit has deposed that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land as same has been duly acquired and placed at the disposal of the DDA U/s 22 of the DD Act and land situated in Khasra Nos 224,699/253 and 700/253 of village Lado Sarai is being utitlized for the purpose of planned development of Delhi and plaintiffs have no right to claim a Rasta for their house from the Govt land. It is deposed that plaintiffs had a big house as shown in red in site plan Ex DW1/1 and said house had an opening of about 60' in length on the Rasta abutting on the north of the said house. However, sometime back the plaintiffs and their cousin Sh Suresh Kumar made division of the house between themselves whereby northern side of the house with entire front of 60' on the Rasta was given to Sh Suresh Kumar and southern side of the house was taken by the plaintiffs. It is also deposed that at the time of said division , a passage/ corridor of about 5' from the main Rasta was left by them for the approach of the part of the house taken by the plaintiffs which has now been closed for the purpose of getting another front opening to the house in the south east from the acquired land and to increase the value of their property. He has proved copies of award, possession report and extract notifications as Ex DW1/2, DW1/3 and DW1/4.