Delhi High Court
Sh. Ram Chander & Anr. vs Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma on 2 April, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 96/2014
% 2nd April, 2014
SH. RAM CHANDER & ANR. ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kr. Gupta and Mr. Vidit
Gupta, Advocates.
VERSUS
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 impugning
the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated
27.2.2013 and the first appellate court dated 1.2.2014; by which the suit filed
by the respondent no.1/plaintiff was partly decreed and the counter-claim
filed by the appellants/defendants no.2 and 3 was dismissed.
2. Disputes in the present case pertain to entitlement of construction of
plaintiff/respondent no.1 on plot bearing no. 24-A, Road No.4, Jai Dev Park,
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi admeasuring 114 sq. metres and situated in K.No.
RSA 96/2014 Page 1 of 4
2434/236, Khata No. 401, Khewat No. 129. The issue with respect to
entitlement to construct on this plot was related to the issue as to whether the
subject plot did fall or did not fall in the sanctioned lay out plan of the MCD
with respect to Jai Dev Park Colony. If the plot is a part of a sanctioned lay
out plan, then MCD will have control over this plot for its management, but
if the plot is not a part of the sanctioned lay out plan, then, MCD will have
no control over this plot, inasmuch as, the plot will be a privately owned plot
originally of the private colonizer, and belonging to the successor-in-interest
to whom the plot was sold.
3. In my opinion, the following 17 and 18 paragraphs of the
judgment of the first appellate court crisply and correctly summarize the
factual position as also the legal conclusions and these paras read as under:-
"17. It is pertinent to note here that the MCD has not claimed
the suit property as an open space or a waste land. The
contention of the appellants that the suit property cannot
be constructed as per the report dated 19.07.1988 of
J.E.(Build.), West Zone, MCD, is contrary to the plea
that the Town Planner in its Report dated 30.03.1999 has
stated that the plot adjoining to the Plot No.24, Road
No.4 does not form part of the approved Lay-Out Plan.
Ld. Trial Court, in order to resolve this controversy, has
examined the witness from the Town Planner and Sh.
Roop Singh, Assistant Town Planner appeared on
14.02.2013 and gave a statement that the plot situated
adjacent to Plot No. 24 in the south direction is not under
the Jaidev Park and the number of this Plot as 24-A has
RSA 96/2014 Page 2 of 4
not been given in the Lay-Out Plan by MCD. Therefore,
the suit property is situated outside the Lay-Out Plan of
Jaidev Park Colony and it cannot be said that the suit
property is within the Lay-Out Plan of the colony. Ld.
Trial Court has also rightly observed that the Resolution
of the Standing Committee Ex.DW3/A and the Lay-Out
Plan Ex.DW2/A do not mention anything about the
nature of use of the suit property. Hence, the findings
arrived at by Ld. Trial Court that the suit property
situated in southern side of Plot No. 24 is not included in
the Lay-Out Plan of the Jaidev Park Colony and
therefore, has not been ear-marked by MCD or Colonizer
for any specific purpose, is re-affirmed and it is also re-
affirmed that the suit property is a private property.
18. The contention of the appellants, that respondent no.1 has
failed to prove the title of the suit property, is also
without any merits. Once, it is held that the suit property
is a private property and there is no dispute about the fact
that Jaidev Colony Park was developed by Pandit Jaidev
Sharma and Property No. 24 and the suit property were
owned by him. It is also an admitted fact that Property
No.24 was purchased by defendant no.3 from the
successor-in-interest of Pandit Jaidev Sharma. It is also
not in dispute that the plaintiff has also purchased the suit
property from defendant no.5-Smt. Veena Gaur w/o Late
Sh. Shashank Dev Gaur, the successor-in-interest of
Pandit Jaidev Sharma. The plaintiff has already settled
his disputes in respect of the suit property with defendant
no.4-Sh. Gulab Singh as is evident from the statement of
defendant no.4-Ex.DW1/2 and the order of the Court
Ex.DW1/3 both dated 18.09.2007 in Suit No.801/2002
titled as "Gulab Singh vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma &
Ors." The appellants have not been able to show if there
is any other person claiming title to the suit property.
Therefore, there can be no doubt with regard to the title
of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff/respondent
no.1. Hence, the findings of Ld. Trial Court on the
aforesaid issues are re-affirmed." (underlining added)
RSA 96/2014 Page 3 of 4
4. A reading of the aforesaid paras makes it more than abundantly
clear that the disputed plot no. 24-A was not a part of a lay out sanctioned
plan with respect to Jai Dev Park. Once that is so, MCD cannot claim any
right to the plot for management and nor can the appellants/defendant nos.2
& 3 claim any title on this plot. So far as ownership is concerned, defendant
nos.2 and 3 are not claiming any ownership on this plot, and if there are any
inter se disputes between the original owner and the successor-in-interest,
including present owner, i.e plaintiff in the suit, the same are of no concern
to the appellants/defendant nos.2 and 3.
5. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises
under Section 100 CPC in this appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
APRIL 02, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
