Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Gurmeet Singh & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 27 July, 2011

Shri Gurmeet Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 May, 2015

Further, it was also observed that it was the case of the defendants since Suit No. 118/2014 Gurmeet Singh & Another Vs. DDA Page No. 11 of 17 the very beginning that the property occupied by the plaintiffs fell within khasra no. 721 min of Village Narayana and 2096 of Village Tihar, which had already been acquired by LAC and thereafter, placed at the disposal of DDA vide relevant notification issued u/s. 22 (1) of DD Act, 1957. Hence, it was the testimony of the plaintiff no. 1 himself which lend credence to the case of the defendants. Even otherwise, the original of the Sale Deed dated 04.05.1990 was never produced before the Court and steps were not taken by the plaintiff to call for the records from the Office of the Registrar in order to prove the copy filed before this Court. The sale deed dated 04.05.1990 was executed in favour of plaintiff no. 1 by one Shri Desh Raj, S/o Shri P. L. Katyal. A copy of a Sale Deed dated 27.04.1972 purportedly executed by Shri Rajinder Gopal in the name of Shri Desh Raj in respect of a property no. 114­B, 116 square yards, MS Block, Hari Nagar, Village Tihar was filed but the copy was an unsigned copy. Even otherwise, the same was not relied upon in the evidence of plaintiff, neither was the original of the sale deed ever filed on record. Hence, the entire chain of title documents existing in favour of Shri Desh Raj, from whom, the plaintiff no. 1 purportedly derived his title were not filed and therefore, it could not be said that plaintiff no. 1 had led any reliable piece of evidence to prove that he was owner of the property bearing no. 114­B, khasra no. 211, 58 square yards, MS Block, Hari Nagar, Village Tihar.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajiv Kumar vs Government Of India And Ors. on 4 August, 2021

27. However, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India permits this Court to, (a) grant relief, even if does not find any right in the petitioner/s thereto, but nevertheless finds the grant of the relief to be necessary to serve the ends of justice and in the particular facts and circumstances; and, (b) to refuse relief, even if the petitioner is found entitled thereto in law. Of course, the said discretion has to be exercised with care and does not vest a magician's wand in the hands of the Court, permitting the Courts to pass any order. A discussion, supported with precedents, in this regard is to be found in Bessy Edison Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University (2011) 176 DLT 335 and in Gurmeet Singh Vs. DDA MANU/DE/2951/2011 and in Amandeep Singh Vs. University of Delhi MANU/DE/2194/2015.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Smriti Bhatia vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 August, 2024

"27. However, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India permits this Court to, (a) grant relief, even if does not find any right in the petitioner/s thereto, but nevertheless finds the grant of the relief to be necessary to serve the ends of justice and in the particular facts and circumstances; and, (b) to refuse relief, even if the petitioner is found entitled thereto in law. Of course, the said discretion has to be exercised with care and does not vest a magician's wand in the hands of the Court, permitting the Courts to pass any order. A discussion, supported with precedents, in this regard is to be found in Bessy Edison Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University (2011) 176 DLT 335 and in Gurmeet Singh Vs. DDA MANU/DE/2951/2011 and in Amandeep Singh Vs. University of Delhi MANU/DE/2194/2015.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Sh. Karan Kohli vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 November, 2019

It is also stated that in the suit titled as Gurmeet Singh Ahuja Vs. DDA the application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking impleadment in that suit wherein similar relief was sought was dismissed. It is also stated that while dismissing the application of the plaintiff, the Hon'ble Court held that the sale deed placed on record by the plaintiff in that case failed to devolve any valid title on the plaintiff herein. It is thus claimed that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the said 30 sq. yards and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1