Smt.Chandan Devi Kapoor vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 5700 Del

A-13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                              Date of Judgment: 14.12.2010


+            RSA No.101/1998 & CM No.3495/1998 (stay)



SMT.CHANDAN DEVI KAPOOR                   ...........Appellant
                  Through:           Mr.AjayMonga and Mr.Ateev
                                     Mathur, Advocates.

                   Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
                               ..........Respondents

                         Through:    None.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated

01.8.1998 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated

17.1.1996 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff had been

dismissed. The appellant had filed a suit for injunction. Contention

was that the plaintiff was the owner of 600 sq. yards of land

purchased by her vide sale deed dated 17.8.1967. Vide another

sale deed dated 24.4.1971 2 bighas of land (2000 sq. yards) has

also been purchased by her. The defendant (DDA) was threatening

to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff qua the 2000

sq. yards of land which was owned by the plaintiff. Suit was

accordingly filed.

2. Defence of the defendant was that the pursuant to suit

proceedings i.e.in suit No.48/75 which was a suit for injunction

filed by the plaintiff the parties had compromised the matter and

2600 sq. yards of land held by plaintiff (600 sq. yards purchased by

her vide sale deed dated17.8.1967 and 2000 sq. yards purchased

by her vide sale deed dated 24.4.1971) had been taken over by the

DDA and in lieu thereof an alternative plot of land measuring 200

sq. yards in Safdarjung had been allotted to her.

3. This contention was dealt with by the Civil Judge while

disposing of issues no.2 and 3. The Court had placed reliance

upon certain documents Ex.PW-1/D-1 is the allotment letter in

respect of this alternative plot no.1-A/227 allotted to the plaintiff,

Ex.PW-1/02 is the handing over memo of the said plot, Ex.PW-1/03

clearly mentioned that plot No.A-1/227 had been allotted to the

plaintiff in lieu of 2600 sq. yards of land which was originally

owned by the plaintiff. Suit of the plaintiff was accordingly

dismissed.

4. This finding of the trial judge was endorsed in the impugned

judgment.

5. The substantial questions of law has been formulated on page

19 of the body of the appeal; they are 10 in number; they inter alia

read as follows:

"i. Whether the relief can be granted to a party who is unable to prove his case on record or who is unable to produce the record, asked for by the Court?

ii. Whether the judgment can be passed on written interference drawn from the pleadings?

iii. Whether the Court can pass judgment by going beyond the

evidence?

iv. Whether a property of any person can be taken away without following the due process of law as is enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India?

v. Whether any property can be acquired without following the procedure as laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? vi. Whether a property can be said to be acquired when admittedly no acquisition had been made in respect of the said land? vii. Whether the Court can draw adverse inference from the evidence produced by the Appellant when no documentary evidence or evidence has been placed before the Court? viii. Whether the person can be dispossessed of the property when admittedly the person is in possession of the said property for the last 30 years as a owner of the property, without following the due process of law?

ix. Whether the Courts below were justified in not allowing the Appeal of the Appellant when no evidence of any nature had been produced by the Respondents?

x. Whether the denial of oral hearing is justified by the Appellate Court so as to deny the rightful/lawful claim of the Appellant?"

5. They all are fact based. Both the facts finding Courts have

returned a concurrent finding thereby dismissing the suit of the

plaintiff. Arguments addressed before this Court do not make out

any substantial question of law. Appeal as also stay application is

dismissed in limine.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

DECEMBER 14, 2010 nandan