Jal Kaur Educational Society & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6718 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of Judgment : 02.11.2016


       W.P.(C) 4853/2013 & C.M. No.3596/2014
       JAL KAUR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS ..... Petitioners
                          Through      Mr.Prakash Gautam and Mr.Vivek
                                       Ojha, Advocates.
                          versus


       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents

                          Through      Ms.Shobhna Takiar, Advocate for
                                       DDA/R-1.
                                       Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC for
                                       GNCTD/R-2.
                                       Mr.S.D.Windlesh,       Advocate         for
                                       UOI/R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral)

1      Petitioner before this Court is Jal Kaur Educational Socierty, a society

registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petition has been filed

through its Chairman.

2 The contention in the petition is that a colony namely Lado Sarai

Extension came into existence in the year 1908. On 13.11.1059 a

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter

referred to as the said Act) was issued for acquiring total land measuring 24

bighas situated in Village Lado Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. A

declaration under Section 6 of the the said Act was issued qua this land on

16.6.1966. Petitoner nos.2 to 4 had constructed their builing on their

respective land earmarked as 225-A, 225-B and 225-C in the year 1974-75.

The khasra Girdwari also noted that this land belongs to the petitioners. The

Award was passed on 19.6.1980. Compensation had not been taken by the

petitioners. In the year 1982 writ petition No.1189/1982 was filed by the

residents of village Lado Sarai. These proceedings were dismissed on

14.12.1995. The SLP (No.3434/1996) filed against the order of the Bench

of the High Court was dismissed on 01.11.1996. Pursuant to the direction of

the Apex Court the representation dated 08.4.1997 was filed by the petitioner

nos.2 to 4 before the DDA.

3 In the year 1997, the erstwhile father of the petitioners had also filed a

suit (Civil Suit No.1619/1997). This suit sought a prayer that the

representation dated 08.4.1997 filed by the petitioners be considered

accordingly.

4 Petitoner no.1 is running a school at the aforenoted site since the year

2002. Recognition had also been granted to the school by the MCD on

18.9.2002. His application seeking regularization is also pending before the

Competent Authority.

5 Additional submission as is borne out from the writ petition is that the

order of respondent no.2/Government of NCT of Delhi concerning

unauthorized colonies was issued on 12.12.2007 wherein the name of Lado

Sarai Extension figures at serial no.483 in the list of Unauthorized Colonies

which are pending regularization.

6 Meanwhile the suit (Suit No.1619/1997) already filed by the father of

the petitioners no.2 to 4 was dismissed by the Trial Court on 04.6.2010. The

RFA (No.579/2010) was preferred by the petitioners which was also

disposed of on 09.7.2013. Submission of the petitioners is that the

respondents are hell bent upon to take coercive steps against the property of

the petitioners in spite of the fact that the Lado Sarai Extension Colony is yet

pending regularization before the Competent Authority. This writ petition

was accordingly filed in July, 2013.

7 Respondent no.1/DDA has filed a reply/response. Submission is that

the petitioner has no legs to stand on. The case of the petitioners from the

very inception is that this land falls in Village Lado Sarai. The area in

question is in fact Lado Sarai and not Lado Sarai Extension as is the plea of

the petitioners taken by them only in this petition. This plea was never

emanated earlier. Submission is that this land already stands acquired under

the Land Acquisition Act and has been taken over for a planned development

of Delhi and it had in fact been allotted to Shanti Memorial Hospital in the

year 1997. This land cannot be regularized as the acquisition proceedings

qua this land have been completed and allotment in favour of the aforenoted

hospital has already been taken place. The act of the petitioners in

challenging the acquisition proceedings has been dismissed right up to the

Apex Court. The petitioners are only land grabbers and they are not entitled

to any protection.

8 The stand of respondent no.2/GNCTD in their counter affidavit is that

the Lado Sarai Extension is an unauthorized colony. Two Residents'

Welfare Associations i.e. Lado Sarai Extension Welfare Association and

Lado Sarai Welfare and Cultural Association have submitted their layout

plan for regularization of unauthorized colony against registration no.483 of

the GNCTD. As per their Regulations dated 24.3.2008 the boundary of the

unauthorized colony bearing Registration no.483 has not ben delineated. It

is not possible for the DDA to ascertain the khasra number falling within the

aforenoted boundary. Further submission is that all construction after

08.02.2007 is not protected under the National Capital Territory of Delhi

Laws (Special Protection) Act, 2007.

9 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his property falls in

Lado Sarai Extension and this is clear from the documents of the Delhi

Government itself where the name of the petitioner nos.2 to 4 find mention

at serial no.207. Submission is that the Government itself is confused.

There is no distinction between Lado Sarai and Lado Sarai Extension. This

is clear from the document at page 189 of the paper book. Additional

submission is that the stand of respondent no.2 is also clear in this regard.

Respondent no.2 is yet to delineate the khasra numbers to arrive at a

conclusion whether these khasras fall in Lado Sarai or Lado Sarai Extension.

10 These submissions have been refuted by learned counsel for

respondent no.1. His stand is that the stand of the petitioners all along since

the time when their father had filed the suit which was in the year 1997 up to

the date of filing of the writ petiton is always that the land of the petitioners

falls in village Lado Sarai. Their case for the first time in the writ petition is

that the land falls in Lado Sarai Extension. This has created a confusion in

the mind of the Court. Attention has been drawn to an order passed by the

Single Judge of this Court dismissing the RFA which was on 09.7.2016. The

submission again reiterated that the case of the petitioner cannot now be

changed as their case always was that their land falls in village Lado Sarai.

11 The respondent no.2 has supported the stand of respondent no.1. His

submission is that the delineation of the khasra numbers was on the

application filed by the Two Residents' Welfare Assocations i.e. Lado Sarai

Extension Welfare Association and Lado i.e. Lado Sarai Welfare and

Cultural Association.

12 Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.

13 Record shows that the petitioner all along has described himself as the

owner of the land falling in Village Lado Sarai. This is clear from the plaint

which he had filed in Suit No.1619/1997. This plaint had in fact been

amended and even in the amended plaint petitioner nos.2 to 4 have been

described as residents of 225-A, 225-B and 225-C Village Lado Sarai. There

was never any reference to village Lado Sarai Extension. The fact that this

land was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

on 13.11.1959 is also a matter of record. The fact that this land was actually

notified and the award qua this land was passed by the LAC on 19.6.1980 is

also a matter of record. The writ petition filed by the petitioner against this

acquisition was dismissed on 14.12.1995. The SLP against that order was

also dismissed on 01.11.1996.

14 The averments in the suit (amended plaint on record) clearly show that

the petitioners were living in their portions in village Lado Sarai. This has

been reiterated in various portions of the plaint. Para 14A is in fact specific

on this count. This suit for injunction had been dismissed. An appeal

against this order was also dismissed in RFA No.579/2010 on 09.7.2013.

The facts were again reiterated by the RFA Court. It was reiterated that the

land falls in Village Lado Sarai. At the cost of repetition, this was always

the stand of the petitioners that this land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas

comprising three separate constructions numbered 225-A, 225-B and 225-C

in khara no.164 falls in Village Lado Sari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The

RFA Court had noted that the stand of the petitioner that the acquisition

proceedings have now reached the finality and they are not subject matter of

any challenge.

15 The contention of the petitioners which has now been raised before

this Court that there is a discrimination and their case is hit by Article 14 of

the Constitution of India was also an issue before the Apex Court. The

submission of the petitioners before this Court today is that their case has

been segregated from the case of others and they have been prejudiced.

This argument was also taken up before the Apex Court which was

negatived. This has been noted by the RFA Court in para 5 of its order.

16 The representation of the petitioner dated 08.4.1997 filed before the

DDA was also considered. Again his case was that his property falls in

Village Lado Sarai. He had sought regularization qua this land. This

representation was rejected by the DDA; the RFA Court had noted that this

has been brought to the notice of the petitioners on 17.11.1997; it was noted

that the land already stands acquired and it has been placed at the disposal of

the DDA; this land has also been allotted in favour of Shanti Memorial

Hospital. The Court had also noted that the right of regularization is to a

colony and not of the individual structures or houses.

17 The RFA had been dismissed on 09.7.2013. The dismissal of the RFA

has closed all doors of the petitioners. The Court had in fact thought it fit to

initiate contempt proceedings against petitioners because of suppression and

concealment of facts.

18 It is relevant to note that the present petition has been filed on

26.7.2013 i.e. within a span of less than two weeks from the date of

dismissal of his RFA. The prayer in the petition is relevant; it reads as

under:

"In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this

Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to allow the present petition thereby

prohibiting the respondents, their officials, employees etc. from demolishing

and or dispossessing the petitioners from their respective structures built on

the land admeasuring 4 bigha 2 biswa falling in khasra no.164, at Lado

Sarai Extension, New Delhi and also the premises bearing no.225-A, 225-B

and 225-C Village Lado Sarai, New Delhi."

19 This Court is of the view that this prayer has already been answered.

His suit for permanent and mandatory injunction already stood dismissed not

only by the first Court but also endorsed by the finding returned by the RFA

Court on 09.7.2013. No appeal has been filed aginst the order of the RFA

Court which has become a final order. All along the case of the petitioners

was that their land falls in Village Lado Sarai i.e. premises nos.225-A, 225B

and 225-C. For the first time, a plea has now been taken before this Court

that their land falls in Lado Sarai Extension. This was never their case

earlier. The fact of the case is that this land stood acquired long back and

the acquisition proceedings have since been completed; the petitioners,

however, chosen to buy time and they have misused the process of the Court

and filed one litigation after other; this is not the business of the Court. The

RFA which was dismissed on 09.7.2013 had already answered the prayer

sought to be set up in the present petition. The stand of respondent no.2

does not come to the aid of the petitioners. This stand of respondent no.2

was an answer to the Two Residents' Welfare Assocaition who had sought

claim. The fact mentioned in their counter affidavit is that there was a clear

distinction between Lado Sarai and Lado Sarai Extension. The submission

of the petitioners before this Court that Village Lado Sarai and Lado Sarai

Extension are one and the same is thus negatives.

20 This petition is without any merit. It is dismissed with costs

quantified at Rs. 25,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

NOVEMBER 02, 2016 ndn