Jai Singh & Anr vs Delhi Jal Board
2012 Latest Caselaw 4008 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CM(M) 1594/2010

                                           Date of Decision: 09.07.2012

JAI SINGH & ANR                                      ..... Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate.
              versus
DELHI JAL BOARD                                         ..... Respondent
                                      Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna,
                                      Advocate for DJB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition is against the order of 1st June, 2010 whereby the appeal

against the order of Learned Civil Judge dated 30.07.2009 on the application

U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed.

2. The petitioner had filed a suit against the respondent along with

application U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction in

respect of land measuring Three Biswas situated in Khasra No. 38/16/1 in

Revenue Estate of village Saffipur, Ranhola, Delhi. The injunction application

U/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated

30.07.2009 by the Learned Civil Judge. The petitioner preferred appeal

against the said order before the Learned ADJ which was also dismissed vide

the impugned order dated 1.6.2010. The said order has been assailed by the

petitioner in the present petition.

3. The main grounds which have been taken by the petitioner are that the

land measuring One Bigha and 14 biswas was notified for acquisition and

awared was also made by the LAC. However, the possession was taken by

LAC of One Bigha and 11 biswas and not of the entire awarded land of One

Bighas and 14 bisws. In other words, the plea that since the possession of

three biswas, which is subject matter of the suit, forming part of Khasra No.

38/16/1, was not taken by the LAC, the acquisition proceedings were not

complete and he being in possession thereof, the interference therein by the

respondent was unwarranted.

4. On the other hand, the plea of the respondent was that the possession

of the entire land was taken and the boundary wall has also been constructed

by the respondent for sewage treatment plant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6 Site plan was filed by the petitioner along with the suit. The boundary

wall starting from A to B admittedly was raised by the respondent. Plaintiff

has stated that there is no boundary wall from point A to C and he continues

to be in possession of this triangular portion measuring three biswas. On the

other hand, the learned counsel for respondent stated that the possession of

the entire land was taken.

7. It is seen from the certificate dated 20.3.1997 issued by the LAC that

the compensation was paid by the LAC in respect of land measuring One

Bigha and 11 biswas of Khasra No. 38/16/1 min. In the possession

proceedings conducted on 6.9.1995 by the LAC also it is evident that it was

only one bigha and 11 biswas of Khasra No. 38/16/1 of which the possession

was taken by the LAC. On going ahead, in para (9) of the written statement,

it is stated by the respondent that the possession of one bigha and 11 biswas

of the land was taken and the remaining land admeasuring three biswas was

with the plaintiff and lying vacant. From the above, it would be seen that

respondent itself is showing the possession of three biswas out of Khasra No.

38/16/1, which was the subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiff, was

with the plaintiff and was lying vacant and of which the possession was not

taken by the LAC and no compensation was paid to the plaintiff. It could not

be disputed that though notified and even formed part of the award of

acquisition, the possession of land measuring 3 biswa was not taken by the

LAC. If that was so, the acquisition proceeding qua this land could not be

said to be complete. In view of this the petitioner has interest in the suit land

and could not be dispossessed without due process of law by the respondent.

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and status-quo is directed to be

maintained in respect of the suit land by both the parties. It is clarified that

the respondent will be at liberty to take further action qua this land as per law.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

M.L. MEHTA, J JULY 09, 2012/pkv