Delhi High Court
Rama Kant Shah vs Shashi Bala Nagpal on 13 November, 2018
$~91
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 13.11.2018
+ CM (M) No.1350/2018 & CM No.46340/2018
RAMA KANT SHAH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.C. Mahindro, Advocate
with Mr.Shubham Agarwal,
Advocate.
versus
SHASHI BALA NAGPAL ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
1. The impugned orders dated 17.08.2018 and 06.09.2018 passed
by the court of learned Civil Judge-06, Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi („Trial Court‟) in Execution Petition No. 228/2017, are
the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
2. With the permission of the Court, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed on record a copy of the judgment dated
19.03.2014 in Civil Suit No. 454/2006 which was decreed in favour of
the respondent/Decree-Holder/plaintiff against the petitioner/judgment
debtor/defendant for possession, permanent injunction, mesne
profit/damages with regard to the property in question bearing No. R-
54, Gopal Park, Model Town, Delhi. The execution of judgment and
CM (M) No.1350/2018 Page 1 of 4
decree dated 19.03.2014 has been sought by the respondent against the
petitioner.
3. The respondent filed the said suit against the petitioner,
claiming herself to be the owner and the petitioner a trespasser. The
petitioner had taken the defence in his written statement that the suit
property was acquired by the Government and the plot was deserted
by the landlord and taking advantage of the situation Sh. Ajit Singh
(PW3) and Sh. Satya Pal Singh (PW2) handed over the said plot to
him on tenancy and they were collecting rent from him. He also
pleaded that notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 were issued on 19.08.1992 and 16.08.1996
respectively for acquiring the said land and the award was passed on
14.08.1995. He also pleaded that the possession of the property was
taken by the government after it demolished the properties and
constructed the road. He pleaded that some portion of the plot was left
out after construction of the road between the Outer Ring Road and
Azadpur and he started residing in the said plot by constructing a
temporary structure using some old bricks and obtained electricity
connection. The respondent had examined Sh. Satya Pal Singh (PW2)
and Ajit Singh (PW3), who categorically denied having given the said
property on rent to the petitioner or having any concern with the suit
property. The „Trial Court‟ decided the issue no. 4 "Whether the
defendant is in possession of the suit premises as a tenant under the
landlordship of Satya Pal and Ranjeet Singh? OPD" against the
petitioner. While deciding issue no.6 as to "Whether the defendant is
CM (M) No.1350/2018 Page 2 of 4
a trespasser in the suit property? OPP", the „Trial Court‟ noticed that
the defendant has not cross-examined PW2 and PW3. The „Trial
Court‟ found that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim that
he was a tenant in the suit property. The „Trial Court‟ found the
petitioner to be a trespasser in the suit property. The „Trial Court‟
noticed that even otherwise, in his cross-examination recorded on
23.08.2013, the petitioner has categorically admitted that the
respondent was the owner of the suit property and that he (petitioner)
was a trespasser. In light of the aforesaid, issue no. 6 was decided
against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. While deciding
issue no. 8 „Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief prayed for? OPP‟.
The „Trial Court‟ found that the physical possession of the suit
property was not obtained by the government till date.
4. In the execution of the said decree dated 19.03.2014, the
petitioner has filed objections that the Judgment Debtor after failing to
get any relief from the Courts had vacated/left the said space and had
occupied the adjoining government land with which the Decree-
Holder has no concern or connection by constructing his fresh Jhuggi.
He further pleaded that "taking the advantage of the space left near
the Azadpur Flyover, the Judgment Debtor has constructed a fresh
Jhuggi with which the Decree Holder has no concern or connection".
He also pleaded that "in view of the aforesaid the Decree of the
Decree-Holder stands fully satisfied and the Decree-Holder cannot
stake claim on the site where a fresh Jhuggi has been constructed by
the Judgment Debtor".
CM (M) No.1350/2018 Page 3 of 4
5. The petitioner has nowhere mentioned in his objection as to
when he vacated the property in question. He has not filed any receipt
of handing over the possession to the Decree-Holder. It appears that
to prolong his unauthorized and illegal occupation of the property in
question he has very conveniently pleaded that after vacating the
property in question he had occupied the the adjoining government
land with which the Decree Holder has no concern. The respondent
filed the suit in the year 2006, which was decreed on 19.03.2014 and
despite filing the execution the respondent has not received the fruits
of the decree due to false and frivolous objections taken by the
petitioner.
6. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
There is no merit in the petition. The petition and application, being
CM No.46340/2018, are dismissed accordingly with no order as to
costs.
VINOD GOEL, J.
NOVEMBER 13, 2018
"shailendra"
