Oruj Ahmed vs Rashiduddin & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2894 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                           I.A. No. 17544/2011
                                           in
                           CS(OS) No. 2310/2011
+                                         Date of Decision: 10th July, 2013
#      ORUJ AHMED                                        ..... Plaintiff
!                              Through: Mr. Y.D. Nagar, Advocate

                                          versus
$      RASHIDUDDIN & ORS.                 ..... Defendants
                 Through: Mr. Anwar Ali Khan, Advocate
                          for D-1
                          Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate
                          with Mr. Zubair Khan,
                          Mr. Tamim Qadri, Mr. Arav
                          Kapoor & Mr. Anubhav Bhasin,
                          Advocates for D-2 to D-4

       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

                                ORDER

P.K.BHASIN, J:

Defendant nos.2 and 3 seek rejection of the plaint in this suit for declaration of title, possession etc. filed against them by the plaintiff on the allegations that they have dispossessed him illegally from the suit property(plot no.33 msg. 400 sq.yds. in khasra no.378/172, Johri Farm, Village Okhla, New Delhi) he had legally acquired from defendant no.1.

2. The applicants-defendants have sought rejection of the plaint, before even filing any written statement, on the ground that in the plaint itself the plaintiff has averred that the suit property, which had been agreed to be sold to him in April, 2009 by defendant no.1 acting as an attorney of his grandfather who allegedly was the recorded owner, had been acquired way back in the year 1984 vide award dated 24th February, 1984 and, therefore, no transaction of sale could have been entered into by defendant no.1 who even otherwise had no right in the suit property and is in fact a head of a gang of land grabbers of Merrut having political patronage also and was terrorising innocent persons to grab their properties in the area where the suit property is situated.

3. This application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. has been opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaint discloses genuine cause of action for filing of the present suit for possession etc. against the applicants-defendants and the suit for possession, declaration of title in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiff has been illegally dispossessed from the suit property by defendant nos. 2 to 4, out of whom defendant no.2 is an Association of the residents of the area and defendant nos. 3 and 4 claim themselves to be the office bearers, and so they are liable to return back the possession and the suit for the reliefs claimed is not barred also under any law.

4. Mr. Ashok Bhasin, learned senior counsel for the applicants- defendants, submitted that defendant No.1 herein is, in fact, a land grabber and he is duping innocent people and also grabbing the properties of others by extending various kinds of threats to them. It was submitted that he has been getting such like suits filed through various persons in respect of the land falling in Khasra No.378/172, which is the subject matter of the present suit also, and trying to get a declaration of title indirectly in his favour or in favour of his deceased grandfather who had allegedly given him his power of attorney based on which defendant no.1 has been entering into agreements of sale with different persons in respect plots of land forming part of the aforesaid khasra despite the fact that the entire land falling within the that khasra in village Okhla stood acquired way back in the year 1984. Learned senior counsel also submitted that defendant no.1 has so far not succeeded in any of the suits got filed by him in getting a declaration of title in his favour since the Courts have been rejecting the plaints of those suits under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Learned senior counsel submitted that in one suit bearing Suit No.2855/1996 filed by some persons, including the grandfather of defendant no.1 through defendant no.1, for seeking a declaration of title in respect of the aforesaid khasra in their favour, this Court vide order dated 29th August, 2001 rejected the plaint of that suit holding that since the land in the aforesaid khasra stood acquired in the year 1984, no declaration of title in favour of any person and particularly the

plaintiffs of that suit could be given.

5. Mr. Bhasin also referred to one order dated 20th July, 2011 passed by me in one revision petition (being C.R.P. No. 6/2011) filed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge in some other suit in respect of the same khasra and village which are the subject matter of the present suit, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the same ground that the land in question stood acquired in the year 1984 was rejected by the Civil Judge. I had allowed that revision petition relying upon the order dated 29th August, 2001 passed by the Single Judge Bench(Original Side) of this Court in civil suit no. 2855/1996. Learned senior counsel further submitted that relying upon the said decision of this Court in the suit of 1996 that Subordinate Courts had also rejected plaints in such like suits in respect of same khasra and village which were involved in the above referred two cases decided by this Court and also in the present suit and in those cases also the main litigant was Rashiduddin, defendant no. 1 herein. Therefore, Mr. Bhasin concluded, the plaint in this suit also should be rejected.

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff sought to distinguish the other cases on the ground that in the present case the plaintiff has taken a plea that the land in question was dropped from acquisition in September, 2009.

7. When the rival contentions were being considered a question arose in my mind as to whether it is only a coincidence that in all the earlier suits referred to by he learned senior counsel for the applicants-defendants the plaintiffs of all those suits were claiming title through Rashiduddin, defendant no. 1 herein as is the position in the present case also despite the fact that this Court had in the year 2001 held in the suit which was filed through defendant no.1 herein as attorney of the plaintiffs, that no declaration of title could be given in favour of anyone in respect of the khasra in dispute because of it having been acquired in the year 1984 or defendant no.1 has been continuing to file suits through proxies for him till the time he gets a declaration from some Court that he had the authority to sell the plots in the khasra in dispute as the attorney of his grand father who was being shown as the real owner. Is it also a coincidence that the defendant impleaded in these kind of suits, except Rashiduddin, have been claiming that they had nothing to do with the lands involved in the suits and they were contesting the suits simply to ensure that Rashiduddin does not succeed in getting any declaration of title in respect of acquired land, like in the present case also defendant nos.2 to 4 are not claiming any right in the suit property which is evident from the fact that they have chosen not to file any written statement. In fact even during the course of hearing learned senior counsel for the applicants- defendants had submitted like the defendants involved in the revision petition, referred to already, allowed by me the present

applicants-defendants were only interested to ensure that Rashiduddin does not succeed in getting a declaration of title in respect of the suit property in his favour. In fact even the Court Commissioner appointed by this Court could not find out as to who actually was the owner and in possession of the suit property. Thus, it appears to me now, of course which view is only a prima facie for the time being, that by way of these kinds of suits some land grabbers are trying to gain advantage from the fact that neither the Delhi Government has been showing any inclination to intervene in these matters, in which declarations of title are being sought by private persons in respect of acquired lands, in order to get a declaration from some Court that the land falling in the acquired khasra actually belongs to them. Even the litigants whose suits had been rejected have not been challenging the orders of rejection of their suits. That circumstance also gives rise to an inference, which also is on a prima facie view for the time being, that all such types of cases are collusive.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that before any further orders are passed in the matter, including on the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Government of NCT of Delhi, Land Acquisition Collector, Commissioner of Police as well as Delhi Development Authority should be asked to appear in the matter to clarify the position so that if at all grabbing of acquired land in village Okhla is found to be going on, which

appears on a prima facie view to this Court to be going on right under the nose of Government authorities, then appropriate directions can be given to prevent that.

9. This application is accordingly kept pending and notices are directed to be issued, without any process fee, to the Government of NCT of Delhi through its Standing Counsel(Civil), Land Acquisition Collector, Commissioner of Police as well as Delhi Development Authority, returnable for 23rd August, 2013. Copy of this order shall be annexed with the notices so that they enter appearance with their responses in the matter in respect of the apprehensions expressed by this Court.

P.K. BHASIN, J JULY 10, 2013