Delhi Development Authority vs Ranjit Singh
2014 Latest Caselaw 627 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                               Date of Decision: 31.1.2014
+     CM(M) No.106/2014

      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Petitioner
          Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal with Ms. Neha Tanwar
                   & Mr. Hem Kumar, Advs.

                          versus

      RANJIT SINGH                                  ..... Respondent

                          Through:     None.

%     MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)

1. This petition challenges an order dated 17.8.2013 which in turn

dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the order of Civil Judge dated

14.12.2012. The plaintiff's-respondent's case in the suit was that he was

in physical possession of the suit land admeasuring one bigha eleven

biswas with dimensions of 75 feet x 185 feet forming part of Khasra

No.495 situated in Mehrauli Village, Delhi. The petitioner had admitted

to a program for demolition at about 11.00 am on 10.2.2008 of the four

rooms constructed therein and contended that it was encroachment upon

the Government acquired land. An interim injunction under Order 39

Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was granted against the petitioner.

The learned Civil Judge took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff

was in possession of the suit property. Whether the suit property was part

of Khasra No.495 - the said acquired land, was a disputed question which

would need to be adjudicated through trial. That the plaintiff had made

out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was deemed in his

favour. The Court found that irreparable loss would be caused to the

plaintiff if the interim injunction was not granted. The balance of

convenience was found in favour of the plaintiff. The impugned order

dismissed the petitioner's appeal for the same reasons on which the

interim order was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Having considered

the above as well as arguments of counsel for the petitioner, this Court

finds that the issue of whether the suit property formed a part of Khasra

No.495 was still to be determined and that this could be done only

through a trial. The view taken both by the learned Civil Judge as well as

in the Appellate Court is a plausible view in law. There is no infirmity in

either of the orders. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the

impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being without

merit.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) JANUARY 31, 2014/ak