HC: Party cannot be allowed to remain quiet about the acquisition of the suit property which was in her knowledge and also continues possession [Read Judgment]

On 25^th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that a party who is relying upon the acquisition of the suit property by the Delhi Development Authority at the stage of execution proceedings cannot be allowed to remain quiet about the acquisition of the suit property which was in her knowledge as also continue to enjoy the possession of the suit property simultaneously.

Facts of the case:

The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 25 th January, 2020 passed by the Ld. ADJ-01 (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by which the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor/Appellant herein, were rejected by the Executing Court. Further, by the impugned order, the Executing Court has issued warrants of possession in respect of the suit property and warrants of attachment against the moveable assets of the Judgment Debtors therein, including the Appellant.

The background of the case is that a suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction was instituted on 8th May, 2008 by the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein - Smt. Paramjit Kaur and Shri. Surbir Singh, against seven Defendants, including the Appellant herein, Smt. Santra Devi, in respect of the suit property. Evidence was adduced by the parties and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Contention of the appellant:

The appellant submitted that the land in question belongs to the Delhi Development Authority, as the same was acquired by the DDA way back in 1969, vide Award No. 4/1969. According to the Appellant, since the land had been acquired by the DDA from the erstwhile owner, Shri Dharampal, any subsequent sale of the suit property to the Respondent who has now obtained the decree would be void ab initio. Mr. Ghanshyam Thakur, ld. Counsel for the Appellant, vehemently submits that the Respondent had obtained the decree by fraud and the Appellant cannot be dispossessed as he has a right in law to retain possession of the suit property on account of adverse possession.

Contention of the decree holder:

Mr. S.K. Vashisht, ld. Counsel for the Decree Holder, submitted that the Appellant’s objections are not maintainable as the objection in respect of the land belonging to DDA was never taken in the suit before the Trial Court. Such an objection cannot be entertained in the execution proceedings.

In any event, he submitted that the Appellant has no right to remain in occupation of the suit property as the Appellant has repeatedly defaulted in complying with the various directions which have been issued by the Court. No use and occupation charges are being paid by the Appellant.

Submissions of DDA:

The DDA has entered appearance and it was submitted by Mr. Mayank Bansal, ld. Counsel for DDA that both the parties were aware of the fact that the land in question had been acquired by the DDA. However, the possession of the land in question was not taken over by the DDA due to built-up houses and constructions on the said property. This, according to him, does not vest any right either with the Decree Holder or the Judgment Debtor.

Observation and Judgment of the court:

The following observation has been made by the hon’ble court:

1. The Appellant is relying upon the alleged acquisition of the suit property by the DDA at the stage of execution proceedings. Thus, the Appellant cannot be allowed to remain quiet about the acquisition of the suit property which was in her knowledge as also continue to enjoy the possession of the suit property simultaneously, which as per her stand belongs to the DDA.
2. The Appellant is also in breach of the orders passed by this Court in respect of the deposit of Rs.10 lakhs as well as the payment of monthly use and occupation charges of Rs.40,000, due to which the stay granted has been vacated.
3. The Court was of the opinion that the DDA is well within its rights to raise any objections which it may have qua the Decree Holder being handed over the suit property pursuant to the impugned decree.

In the light of the above, the bench held that  since the stand of the Appellant herself is that the land belongs to DDA, the execution of warrants of possession of the suit property and warrants of attachment against the movable assets of the Judgment Debtors cannot be obstructed or hindered by the Appellant in any manner. The warrants of possession and warrants of attachment would be liable to be executed in accordance with law.

Further, The DDA was granted 8 weeks’ time to file its objections before the Executing Court.

Picture Source :