(July 23, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125534

2001-DLT-94-254 :: 2001-AD (Del)-7-72

MADHO PARSHAD Vs. RAM KISHAN

V. S. AGGARWAL

( 1 ) MADHO Prasad, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The facts alleged are that there is a piece of, land measuring 2866. 6 sq yrde forming part of khasra no. 52 in village Masoodpur village. Initially the land was owned and possessed by one Roshan Lal and his relatives. There were duly executed sale deeds in their favour and mutations had been filed in their names. During the consolidation proceedings in village Masoodpur the entire land was given which formed part/share of khasra no. 52 which is 40 bighas. The plaintiff had purchased the same before 20th october, 1956 for residential purpose and therefore the matter was not covered by sub-section 3 to Section 3 of Delhi Land Reforms Act. the plaintiff is in physical possession of the said land. The said land is stated to have been urbanised on 1/11/1954.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff and other co-owners had instituted proceedings under the Delhi Land Reforms Act claiming the relief that the vesting of the land in favour of the government was illegal and without jurisdiction. A prayer was made seeking relief of declaration that plaintiffs therein were bhumidars u/s 11 of Delhi Land reforms Act. The said proceedings were contested and were decided by Shri B. K. Sehgal, Revenue Assistant, delhi vide order dated 4/06/1986. The Revenue assistant held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and were entitled to retain land in suit. The said order had never been assailed in any proceedings. Out of the 40 bighas of land the plaintiff who is the co-owner had sold 30 bighas in favour of defendant no. 7. Necessary sale deeds were duly executed and registered. The remaining 10 bighas had been in possession of some other persons. The plaintiff claims that he is co-owner of the land in question. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants in collusion with others are trying to dispossess plaintiff from the property in dispute. By virtue of the present suit therefore they seek a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession, use and occupation of the land measuring 2866. 6 sq. yds forming pat of khasra no. 52 referred to above.

( 3 ) DURING, the pendency of the suit the petitioner/plaintiff claims ah ad interim injunction in this regard vide IA 5221/98.

( 4 ) IN the written, statement defendants 1, 3 and 5 contested the suit as well as the application seeking ad interim injunction. It is denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property or has any right, title or interest therein. The total area of the land of which the suit land was stated to be forming a part comprised of 41 bighas 14 biswas. The said land belonged to the total of 8 persons being three sons and five grand sons of Pt. Bishan Sihgh. The eldest son Roshan Lal had no issue. Raghubir singh had three sons, namely Suraj Prashad, Om Prakash and Chander Mohan Singh and Sultan Singh had two sons, namely Ramesh Chand and Mahesh Chand. In 1948 there were eight co-owners being three sons and five grandsons of Bishan Singh. It is pleaded that initially revenue record numbers or the original land was Khewat No. 1, Khatuni nos. 12 and 14.

( 5 ) BY virtue of Patta/perpetual Lease dated 3/09/1949 the land comprising of 41 Bighas and 14 Biswas were taken on lease from eight co-owners referred to above. One of the lessees and co-proprietors of M/s Desh Hit Company was Pt. Raghubir Singh himself son of Pt. Bishen Singh. The perpetual lease had been duly registered. Perpetual lease was granted for the construction of a mandi with shops, quarters, houses, and roads on the original land totalling 41 bighas and 14 biswas, This was known as roshan mandi. The name was derived from one of the eight original co-owners i. e. Roshan Lal who was the eldest and the head of the family. The five perpetual lesse