Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Nand Singh (Deceased) Thr. His ... on 20 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No. 45/2014 & CM No.2690/2014 (stay)
% 20th March, 2014
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocate with Mr.
Varun Garg, Adv.
VERSUS
NAND SINGH (DECEASED) THR. HIS L.R., UMESH SINGH BHATI
...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rohit Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. After arguments, the facts and the issues which are crystallized
are that in khasra No.21 of village Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi, there was a
total land of 4 bighas and 19 biswas. Out of 4 bighas and 19 biswas, 3
bighas and 17 biswas were acquired by the Government vide Award
No.1536 of 1963.
2. As per para 6 of the written statement of the
appellant/defendant in the trial Court the remaining area of 1 bigha and 2
RSA 45/2014 Page 1 of 4
biswas of khasra No.21 was given numbers 21/2/2 and 21/1 and with respect
to which the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was stated to have been issued. The written statement is silent and there is
no evidence in the trial Court that this area of 1 bigha and 2 biswas of land
was acquired at any time by the Government and thereafter placed at the
disposal of the appellant/Delhi Development Authority under Section 22 of
the Delhi Development Act.
3. Before this court, learned counsel for the appellant argues that
actually appellant is not in possession of entire 1 bigha and 2 biswas, but 1
bigha of land is in possession of Karizan Basti which/who or such owners of
land are not parties to the suit and therefore the decree passed in the present
case in favour of the respondent/plaintiff can be mis-utilized.
4. The fact of the matter is that the appellant who was defendant in
the suit does not claim ownership rights in 1 bigha and 2 biswas of land
situated in khasra No.21. Therefore, if the respondent/plaintiff will get a
decree of injunction in the present suit, it will only be against the appellant
and not against Karizan Basti inasmuch as a judgment in a civil suit is only
binding inter parties or persons who claim through the parties. This is the
RSA 45/2014 Page 2 of 4
law under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Therefore, if
Karizan Basti or its occupants have any claim to 1 bigha and 2 biswas of
land of khasra No.21, this judgment will not bind the occupants/owners of
the said Karizan Basti and who are alleged by the appellant to be in
possession of 1 bigha and 2 biswas of khasra No.21. I must hasten to add
that the respondent/plaintiff contrarily claims to be the owner and in
possession of the entire 1 bigha and 2 biswas and not only of 2 biswas as
was the case of the appellant.
5. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of with the
direction that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in the
present case will only be binding inter parties with respect to 1 bigha and 2
biswas of land of khara No.21 of village Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi and
which have now been given two khasra numbers as 21/1 (2 biswas) and
21/2/2 (1 bigha). It is also clarified that this order is passed and impugned
judgments are sustained assuming the fact that respondent/plaintiff is in fact
sitting on 1 bigha and 2 biswas of land in khasra No.21 which are now
numbered as 21/1 and 21/2/2. In case, the respondent/plaintiff is not
physically at the spot in possession of any part of khasra No.21 being khasra
RSA 45/2014 Page 3 of 4
No.21/1 and 21/2/2 i.e respondent/plaintiff is in possession of land located in
a totally separate khasra number, then, it is clarified that nothing contained
in today's order or the impugned judgments affects any of the parties qua
such land which does not fall in K.Nos. 21/1 and/or 21/2/2.
6. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
MARCH 20, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
