Delhi High Court
Talat Parveen Naqvi vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 23 October, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 21.10.2009
Date of Order: October 23, 2009
CS(OS) No. 1877/2009
% 23.10.2009
Talat Parveen Naqvi ... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. P.K.Duggal, Advocate &
Mr. Sanjay Bhasin, Advocate
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. ... Defendants
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction wherein
plaintiff has claimed to be the owner and in possession of land falling in khasra nos. 64,
65, 66, 101, 102 & 103 (min) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kotla, Delhi. She
stated she was in possession of land falling in khasra no. 103 (min) measuring 3000 sq.
yards a built up property and was in continuous use occupation of plaintiff ever since she
acquired rights from her predecessor viz. Shri Hari Ram Mittal vide Probate proceedings
in respect of Will executed by him. She submitted that a squad of the defendant no.1
came to the premises on 17.3.2009 and started demolishing the premises citing the
same as a recent unauthorized construction. The squad threatened to take possession
of the land in case the materials belonging to plaintiff were not removed. She submitted
that the defendant's squad was inimical towards the plaintiff on account of religious bias
and had to leave the place because of the intervention of the local police but they went
away renewing the threat to come back again to accomplish their illegal designs. She
stated that the action of the defendant in part demolishing the property and the threat
was illegal as defendant had no right, title or interest over the property and the plaintiff
was never issued a show-cause notice. The area under occupation of plaintiff was an
urbanized village and was an unauthorized colony which has been given provisional
recognition. Thus, defendant no.1 had no right to interfere in the possession of plaintiff
as the area had already been transferred to defendant no.2 i.e. MCD and the policy
statement was issued by the authorities that urbanized villages in Delhi would be
transferred to control and administration of defendant no.2. It is stated that vide
notification dated 19.5.1987 the area in question was transferred from defendant no.1 to
defendant no.2 and therefore defendant no.1 had no right to take demolition action. A
prayer has been made that the Court should issue a perpetual injunction in favour of
plaintiff and against defendant no.1 restraining defendant no.1 from forcibly evicting,
dispossessing or causing any interference in use, enjoyment and possession of the
plaintiff in respect of khasra no.103 (min), Revenue Estate of Village Kotla, Delhi.
2. The site plan filed by the plaintiff shows that the entire area as open land
or part demolished land. No existence of structure can be made out from the site plan.
In the site plan a gate has been shown and on both sides of the gate demolished portion
has been marked. Right through the gate, a passage has been shown going upto end of
a piece of land and along the passage some trees, open areas and demolished portion
has been shown. On one side of the passage, a Charitable Medical Centre has been
written however, no structure plan of such Charitable Medical Centre is there. The other
documents filed by the plaintiff describe the land as agricultural land. The khasra
Girdawari entries only show what was sown in the land and when it was sown. Khasra
Girdawari does not show existence of any structure on the land. Even the Will filed by
the plaintiff, under which the plaintiff has claimed ownership, records that it was about a
vacant piece of land. The Will does not state that there was a khasra no. 103(min). Will
relied on is of one Mr. Hari Ram Mittal and in this Will he has stated that he was owner
of vacant land lying in khasra nos. 64, 65, 66, 101, 102, 103, 104 & 105 of Village Kotla.
Out of this land a part of the land belonging to him had been acquired and he authorized
plaintiff, by way of a power attorney, to collect compensation in respect of acquired
properties. He further stated that after his death the aforesaid (un-acquired) properties
shall be absolutely of the plaintiff. It is nowhere stated in the Will what were the acquired
portions and what were the un-acquired portions.
3. The plaintiff obtained Probate of this Will in her favour. It is settled law
that Probate Court only determines genuineness of the Will. Grant of Probate does not
confer any title on the person in whosoever favour Probate is granted. A person is free
to make Will in respect of any property, whether he owns it or not. A person can make
Will in respect of his neighbor's properties or any government land. There is no bar on
making Will by a person of President's House or Red Fort. Merely because Will is a
genuine Will neither the President's House nor the Red Fort would be owned by the
legatee. The title of the property in favour of the legator has to be established
independent of the Will, before legatee can claim any right under a Will.
4. The plaintiff has also failed to place on record the award by which part of
the properties was acquired. The other documents placed by the plaintiff on record are
house-tax receipt, electricity bill, water bill. In none of the documents, the description of
property is given as khasra no.103 (min). It is obvious that the plaintiff has failed to
show any title over the land nor the plaintiff has shown if any construction at any point of
time existed on the vacant land, which she allegedly inherited.
5. I consider that no injunction can be granted by the Court in a suit where
plaintiff has failed to show even prima facie that there was a structure existing on the
property which the plaintiff allegedly owned. I also find that the allegations made by the
plaintiff against defendant of religious bias are unfounded and contumacious allegations.
Defendant no.1 is a statutory authority and such pleadings of unfounded allegations of
religious bias must be scored off by the court. I find no merits in this suit. The suit is
hereby dismissed being not maintainable.
October 23, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
