Delhi High Court
Shiv Narain & Another vs Estate Officer & Another on 27 January, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
13.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5195/2007
SHIV NARAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
ESTATE OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 27.01.2010
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner again states that he is not receiving
instructions from his client. However, he states that he is ready to argue the
matter, though he prays for two weeks adjournment to place on record copy
of the title documents in favour of Mr. Moti Ram, great grandfather of the
present petitioners. The statement made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is contradictory.
2. The petitioners had not appeared before the Estate Officer and an ex
parte eviction order dated 27th February, 2003 was passed.
3. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal but did not file any document
of title even before the appellate court. Request was made before the
appellate court that the matter should be remanded back to enable the
petitioners to establish title of their late grandfather Mr. Moti Ram. Learned
Additional District Judge rejected the said contention as the petitioners had
failed to file copy of the alleged document of title in favour of Mr. Moti Ram.
It was observed that it would be the case of empty formality if the matter was
remanded back. In spite of the said order, while filing the present writ
W.P. (C) No. 5195/2007 Page 1
petition, the petitioners have not filed any document of title. I am not,
therefore, inclined to grant any further adjournment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-DDA
is not owner of the land. My attention was drawn to agreement dated 23rd
September, 1940 and khasra numbers mentioned in the said agreement.
Reference was also made to jamabandi of the property in question, which
records that the property is located in khasra No. 257.
5. The said jamabandi records that the owner of the property is Sarkar
Daulat Madar. Agreement dated 23rd September, 1940 was between the
Governor General in Council and the Delhi Improvement Trust. By the said
agreement, land mentioned in the schedule I was transferred to the trust.
Schedule I records that Nazul Revenue Estates of Sadar Bazar North and
South stand transferred. Where the entire revenue estate was not transferred,
specific Khasra numbers and other details are mentioned. In addition to this
agreement, the respondent-DDA has placed on record an earlier agreement
dated 31st March, 1937 between the Secretary of State for India in Council
and the Delhi Improvement Trust. The second agreement dated 23rd
September, 1940 refers to the earlier agreement and states that the
government desires to place at the disposal of the trust land known as Bela
Bir measuring 293.04 acres more or less as stated in the Schedule. Thus as
per agreement dated 23rd September, 1940, entire land in Nazul Revenue
Estate of Sadar Bazar North and Sadar Bazar South was transferred.
6. The question of ownership of land was examined by the learned
Additional District Judge and she has observed as under:-
"4.3 Even if for a while, the appellants
contention that they have not been allowed to
lead evidence to show their authority to occupy
the said land, is considered now, it is observed
that the appellants on one hand, in para no. 1 of
W.P. (C) No. 5195/2007 Page 2
their appeal have stated that their great grand
father Sh. Moti Ram had purchased the said land
vide sale deed dated 27.11.1935. Whereas on
the other hand, the appellants are claimed
ownership and right to occupy the said land by
virtue of their continuous adverse and hostile
possession since long. The appellants have not
placed on record any sale deed vide which Sh.
Moti Ram had purchased the said land. In view
of these facts, it is clear that the appellants are
claiming ownership rights of the said
property/said land on the basis of continuous and
uninterrupted adverse and hostile possession.
DDA on the other hand has proved Nazul
agreement vide which the government land
including the said property was placed under the
supervision of the Delhi Improvement Trust, for
orderly expansion of Delhi. DDA also proved
Jamabandi and Aks Shijra. As per Jamabandi
for the year 1971-72 government is the owner of
the property and Sh. Babu Ram son of Sh. Moti
Ram, kewal Ram s/o Banwari Lal are shown to
be in unauthorized occupation of the government
land. Thus, it is evident that the appellants great
grand father was an unauthorized occupant of
the government property/said property."
7. There is no evidence or material placed on record by the petitioners to
challenge and question the aforesaid findings.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 27, 2010.
VKR/NA
W.P. (C) No. 5195/2007 Page 3
