Delhi High Court
Mr. Mohit Tiwari vs Sh. Krishan Pal & Ors. on 25 March, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25.03.2015
+ CS(OS) 2486/2010
Mr. Mohit Tiwari ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Aditya Kala, Adv.
versus
Sh. Krishan Pal & Ors. ..... Defendants
Through: Ex parte vide order dt. 8.8.2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Open Court)
1. This is a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The
plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property, i.e., a land
admeasuring 3 bighas and 17 biswas bearing No. 371 min., situated
in the revenue estate of Village Nangloi Syed, Delhi by virtue of a
registered sale deed dated 21/06/2010 (Ex. PW-1/2). The plaintiff
claims to have raised a construction thereon and let out seven shops
thereof to different tenants by way of registered rent agreements
(Ex. PW-1/21 to PW-1/27). The defendant No.1 is stated to be a
land-grabber and defendant Nos. 2 & 3 are stated to be Sub
CS (OS) 2486/2010 Page 1 of 4
Divisional Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner concerned,
respectively.
2. The plaintiff's case is that defendant No.1 coerced the plaintiff to
sell the suit property, however, he refused to do so; that upon a
complaint made by defendant No.1, the local police made a report
under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the
concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate got the suit property sealed.
A revision petition preferred by the plaintiff apropos the said
proceeding is stated to be pending before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. The plaintiff claims that an attempt was made by the defendants to
show that the suit property is an acquired land; the plaintiff
submitted a certified copy of the Gazette Notification issued on
30.06.1996 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Ex. PW-
1/8), a certified copy of award No. 2202 dated 12.06.1969 (Ex.
PW-1/19) and a certified copy of the Gazette Notification issued
under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (Ex. PW-
1/20) to prove that the suit property was never acquired by the
Government. It is also submitted that the said admitted position has
gone un-rebutted.
CS (OS) 2486/2010 Page 2 of 4
4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that as per the letter dated
28.02.2008 written by the DDA to the SHO, Police Station,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (Ex. PW-1/6) and another letter dated
11.08.2010 written by the DDA to the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi (Ex. PW-1/5), the
suit property has not been acquired by the Government.
5. In essence, the plaintiff's case is that he is the rightful owner of the
suit property and defendant No.1, allegedly a land-grabber wants to
grab the suit property in connivance with defendant Nos. 2 & 3.
6. The defendants have been proceeded ex parte vide order dated
08.08.2014. The defendants have filed the Written Statement (WS),
however, no documents have been relied upon by them. Defendant
No.1, in his WS has stated that he is in possession of the suit
property and has claimed that the sale deed relied upon the plaintiff
is false, forged and fabricated. The defendant Nos. 2 & 3, in their
WS have averred to the effect that they were only discharging
official duties. Through such bare statements only, without leading
any evidence, to prove the substance of the averments the
defendants have sought to controvert the averments in the plaint.
CS (OS) 2486/2010 Page 3 of 4
7. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
defendants have neither led any evidence nor rebutted the
plaintiff's evidence. It is further submitted that the documents
adduced by the plaintiff have not been rebutted either, therefore,
they are deemed to be proved. Accordingly, a decree is sought in
terms of the prayers in the suit.
8. The evidence of the plaintiff has not been rebutted. The defendants
have merely made bald averments in the WS and have not proved
the same, either by documents or any evidence. The case of the
plaintiff, supported by documents and evidence has gone un-
rebutted. This Court sees no reason to disbelieve the case of the
plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has
made out a case for the reliefs sought in the plaint. Accordingly,
the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint.
9. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
10. The suit and pending applications are disposed off in the above
terms.
MARCH 25, 2015 NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
vmk
