Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority & Ors vs Pushpa Lata & Ors on 9 February, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 2/2012
% Date of Decision: 09.02.2012
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Appellants
Through : Mr.Arjun Pant, Advocate
versus
PUSHPA LATA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J.(ORAL)
*
CM 366/2012
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
RSA 2/2012 & CM367/2012
1. In this regular second appeal, appellant-DDA has challenged two
concurrent judgments of the two courts below i.e., of first court dated 1 st
December, 2005 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and the second
court/first appellate court dated 19th January, 2011 whereby the suit of the
respondents 1 to 8 for permanent injunction has been decreed.
2. Shri Hans Raj, the original plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent
injunction for restraining the defendants i.e., appellants-DDA and respondent
no.9-UOI herein from demolishing the room/kotha forcibly and illegally,
mentioned red in the site plan affected with the plan, situated in Khasra
Nos.2931/1631/2/1 and Khewat No.178, Khatuani No.479 at Village
Mehrauli, New Delhi. After the death of Shri Hans Raj in the year 1998, the
said suit was pursued by his legal heirs who are respondents 1 to 8 in the
present appeal. It was alleged in the plaint that original plaintiff i.e. Sh.
Hans Raj was the co owner/co bhumidhar of the suit land duly recorded in
Khasra Girdwari. Plaintiff had alleged that he had become the owner of the
said land by virtue of decree passed in suit for declaration in his favour in
suit no.479/69 by the court of Shri Ravi Kumar, the then Ld. Sub Judge,
Delhi. The plaintiff had constructed a room on the said land which was duly
mentioned in the said suit for declaration. Appellant-DDA had opposed the
aforesaid suit by contending that the said property is a Gaon Sabha land and
on the urbanization of the village, land had vested in the Central Government
and the same was placed at the disposal of DDA vide notification
no.S.O.No.2190 dated 20.8.74. On the basis of pleadings, issues were
framed and the evidence was led by the parties. The plaintiffs before the
learned Civil Judge had proved on record copy of the earlier plaint, judgment
and decree in suit no.479/69 wherein original plaintiff i.e., Hans Raj was
declared co owner of the suit land. In the said suit, the order of the Revenue
Assistant dated 30.9.59 declaring the land as bhumidari of gaon sabha was
held null and void and Union of India were permanently restrained from
interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The said suit
was decided on 20th March, 1975. It is not the case of the appellant-DDA
that the said finding was ever challenged in the higher forum.
3. The learned Civil Judge has held that the subject matter of two suits is
same i.e., suit No. 479/1969 and suit No. 564/1993. In suit No. 479/1969
vesting the suit land with Gaon Sabha was held null and void and UOI was
restrained from interfering with possession of plaintiff over suit land whereas
the order of the Revenue Assistant dated 30.9.59 has already been held null
and void. In these circumstances, the learned Civil Judge has held that the
DDA can't re-agitate the issue.
4. The First Appellate Court has upheld the findings of the learned Civil
Judge vide impugned order dated 19th January, 2011.
5. DDA is claiming ownership over suit land through UOI which has
already been decided against UOI in earlier suit as is mentioned above. The
DDA is trying to re-agitate the issue. Both the courts below have rightly
held that DDA can't re-agitate the issue. A second appeal u/s 100 CPC is
only entertained if a substantial question of law arises. No substantial
question of law arises in this appeal.
Appeal stands dismissed.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2012
ssb
