Delhi High Court
Airports Authority Of India vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 20 April, 2018
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 20th April, 2018
+ CM(M) 1219/2013 and CM No. 17844/2013
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Pulkit
Tyagi, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS
.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Mr. Sanjay
Singh and Mr. Ajay Birbal,
Advs. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner was the second defendant in the civil suit (suit
no. 74/2007) which was instituted by the third respondent on
17.02.2007 seeking reliefs in the nature of declaration and injunction -
mandatory and prohibitory. The first respondent was impleaded as the
third defendant while the fourth respondent was shown in the array as
the fourth defendant. The dispute between the said plaintiff and the
fourth respondent (fourth defendant) concerned the claim for allotment
of alternative plot in lieu of acquisition of lands comprised in Khasra
No.1243 measuring 43 Sq. yards, New Delhi owned by one Kedar
Nath who had statedly died on 28.02.2001, the plaintiff claiming to be
his successor-in-interest on the strength of Will dated 26.02.2001.
2. The plaintiff/third respondent and the fourth respondent, had
jointly moved application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, by informing the civil judge that they had amicably
resolved the dispute. The said application resulted in final order
passed in the said suit on 30.05.2011 by the Civil Judge (West) with a
direction to the other defendants, particularly the petitioner, for
allotment of the rehabilitation plot admeasuring 40 sq. meter in lieu of
the acquired land. The present petition challenges the legality and
propriety of the said final order.
3. It was fairly conceded by the learned counsel arguing for the
petitioner that there has been default and neglect on the part of the
petitioner in pursuing its interest, the proceedings in the civil suit
having been suffered in absence and therefore ex parte, though the
explanation is merely that "track was lost of the case". Be that as it
may, the prime contention is that there is an error in the impugned
order/judgment, reference being made, inter alia, to various orders in
certain previous proceedings arising out of the acquisition of lands in
village Nangal Dewat including judgment dated 18.05.2005 in writ
petition (Civil) No. 481/1982 titled Daryao Singh Vs. Union of India
and Ors.; judgment of a learned single Judge dated 30.05.2007
reported as Airports Authoriy of India vs. Karan Singh & Ors., 141
(2007) DLT 277; order dated 31.07.2007 in CM(M) 564/2007; and
order dated 15.07.2013 in writ petition (civil) No.340/2013 as upheld
by a division bench by order dated 26.08.2013 in LPA 613/2013
besides order dated 01.12.2008 in CM (M) No.1066/2007.
4. After some hearing, learned counsel for the third respondent,
the prime contesting party, he being the plaintiff of the suit in which
the impugned order was passed, fairly conceded that given the
directions in the previous matters as referred to above, the civil suit
could and should not have been decided or disposed of by the Civil
Judge in the manner done and that against the above backdrop the
impugned order must be set aside. He at the same time requested that
the proceedings in the civil suit may be revived and further that the
matter may be withdrawn from the Court of Civil Judge and
transferred to the original side of this Court so that it may be tried
along with other similarly placed cases already pending.
5. Thus, the impugned order dated 30.05.2011 passed on the file of
suit No. 74/2007 by the Civil Judge is set aside. The proceedings in
the said civil suit of the third respondent stand revived. The civil suit
is withdrawn from the court of Civil Judge and transferred to the
original side of this Court to be listed on 16th May, 2018, before the
appropriate roster bench, for further proceedings in accordance with
law.
6. The registry shall take necessary steps to have the file of the
civil suit requisitioned and placed before the appropriate roster bench
on the said date.
7. The petition and the applications filed therewith stand disposed
of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J
APRIL 20, 2018
uj
