Delhi High Court
Harminder Kaur vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 October, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 20.10.2010
+ R.S.A.No.62/1998 & C.M.Appl.2235/1998
HARMINDER KAUR ...........Appellant
Through: None.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..........Respondent
Through: Ms.Priyanka Kathuria for
Ms.Sangeeta Chandra,
Advocate.
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
20.4.1998 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated
8.12.1989 thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff Harminder
Kaur.
2. The plaintiff had purchased 100 sq.yds. of land in Mahabir
Nagar vide a sale deed dated 24.7.1972. As per her version, she
had constructed a house bearing No.WZ.T.57 thereon which was
assessed to house tax. On 25.3.1979 some officials of the DDA had
threatened to demolish her house. Present suit for injunction was
filed by the plaintiff as no show cause notice/demolition notice had
been served upon her prior to the aforenoted threat.
3. The trial judge had framed five issues. The trial judge has
held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that she was in
possession of the suit property on 21.7.1973; the suit land vests in
the DDA; the possession of the plaintiff is that of a trespasser. She
was not entitled to any relief.
4. The first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated
20.4.1998 had confirmed this finding. It was reiterated that the
superstructure of the disputed land had stood acquired vide Award
No.20/73-74 and physical possession was taken over by the Land &
Building Department on 21.7.1973 and 3.8.1974. After demolition
of the superstructure the land was placed at the disposal of the
DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act vide notifications dated
25.9.74 and 2.12.74. The land vested with the government.
5. This is a second appeal. It was admitted on 5.2.1999. Status
quo of the property had been ordered to be maintained. Till date
substantial question of law has not yet been formulated. Counsel
for the appellant has chosen not to appear on the last two dates i.e.
21.9.2010 & 29.9.2010. The counsel for the DDA had been
directed by this court to get suit property inspected to determine
its status. Counsel for DDA has filed the affidavit of Mr.S.N.Gupta,
Director (Land Management), DDA wherein it is stated that the
Patwari has inspected the site. The site inspection has revealed
that there is no property existing by the no.WZ-T-57 in Mahabir
Nagar, New Delhi and no such property number exists anywhere
near Khasra No.52, Village Nangli Jalib. Local enquiry has also
confirmed that there is no 'T Block' in the entire Mahabir Nagar.
On affidavit it is reiterated that the land stood acquired by an
Award and physical possession of the same was handed over to the
DDA on 21.7.73 and of the remaining land on 3.8.74 which was
placed at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA
Act and as such land now vests with the DDA.
6. The substantial questions of law formulated in the body of
appeal read as follows:
(i) Whether out of more than 2000 houses, situated in
the colony which are the subject matter of the Award,
only the house of appellant can be demolished?
(ii) Whether the respondent can deprive the appellant
from her property without paying compensation in
respect of the land & the super-structure existing on the
said land?
(iii) What is the effect of regularization of the
colony by the M.C.D. and providing of all the civic
amenities in the said colony?
(iv) Whether the action of the respondent in
demolishing the property of the appellant without taking
any action against various other houses situated in the
said colony which are also the subject matter of the same
award, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India?
(v) Whether the respondent can deprive the appellant
from his property without paying compensation?
(vi) Whether the findings of the courts below are
perverse and against the evidence available on the
record which clearly show that the appellant has
constructed the house in 1972 and has been paying
property tax of the said property and has been living in
the said property along with her family members?
(vii) What is the effect of levying the development
charges of the said plot, by the D.D.A. and in spite of the
receipt of the development charges, whether the
respondent can still allege that the possession of the said
plot was taken by them on the basis of alleged award,
which was issued after the purchase of the plot in dispute
by appellant? And whether the appellant can be deprived
of her property in vilation of Article 300.A of the
Constitution of India?
(viii) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower
appellate court is not in accordance with law, which has
resulted into grave miscarriage of justice to the
appellant?
(ix) Whether the lower appellate court has failed to
consider the application of the appellant under order 6
rule 17 CPC in right perspective manner and dismissed
the same arbitrarily?
7. These are all questions of fact. Second appellate court is not
a third fact finding court. Admittedly, as per questions of law
formulated by the appellant the suit property had stood acquired
by an Award. The question as to whether she had received
adequate compensation or not cannot be gone into by this court.
Even otherwise, none has appeared for the appellant to assist it.
No question of law much less any substantial question of law has
arisen in this case. Appeal as also the pending application is
dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 20, 2010
rb
