Back
High Court Of Delhi
ESSEX FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Respondent
Suit 997 of 1995
Decided On : 09/01/1995
INJUNCTION - MANDATORY - INTERLOCUTORY - PRINCIPLES - STREET - REVENUE RECORDS - PRESUMPTION - ACQUISITION OF LAND BY DDA - DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE - CONTINUANCE OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS - CONVENTIONAL - NO PRESUMPTION - IRREPARABLE LOSS OR INJURY - COMPENSATION IN TERMS OF MONEY - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - STATUS QUO - MAINTENANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, owners of a property with two gates, one on the North side and the other on the South side, filed a suit for declaration of their right to access and use the street abutting the South gate and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their ingress and egress. The defendant, in possession of the adjacent property, claimed that the land in question was allotted to it by the DDA for construction of a bus terminus and that no gate of the plaintiffs ever opened onto its land. The plaintiffs relied on entries in the Revenue Records showing the land as a street, while the defendant contended that such entries were conventional and could not be relied upon after the land was acquired by the DDA for development purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a mandatory injunction in the form prayed for during the pendency of the suit. It observed that mandatory injunctions are generally granted to preserve or restore the status quo and not to establish a new state of things. In the present case, the alleged gate already stood closed by the erection of a wall by the defendant before the institution of the suit. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not established a strong case for trial and that the balance of convenience did not lie in granting the injunction. It further held that the entries in the Revenue Records showing the land as a street did not create a presumption of correctness after the land was acquired by the DDA for development purposes.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to provide access to the street abutting the South gate of their property. 2. Whether the entries in the Revenue Records showing the land as a street created a presumption of correctness after the land was acquired by the DDA for development purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Mandatory injunctions are generally granted to preserve or restore the status quo and not to establish a new state of things. In the present case, the alleged gate already stood closed by the erection of a wall by the defendant before the institution of the suit. 2. The entries in the Revenue Records showing the land as a street did not create a presumption of correctness after the land was acquired by the DDA for development purposes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for injunction and allowed the defendant's application to vacate the ex parte order of injunction. It also permitted the defendant to re-erect the wall and carry out necessary repairs thereto so as to maintain the status quo as it existed on the date of institution of the suit.
( 1 ) THESE are two applications, one by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") for injunction directing the defendant to provide access to the plaintiffs, their agents, employees, patrons and other visitors to/from the South gate of the property on the street connecting Panchsheel Marg and Azad Apartment/kalu Sarai Road and restraining them from, in any manner, interfering with and/or obstructing ingress and egress of the plaintiffs from the South gate upto the public street. The other application is under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code filed by the defendant for vacating the ex parte order of injunction which was granted in mandatory form.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs in the suit have alleged that plaintiff No. I and late Shri R. N. Goyle owned and possessed the premises bearing No. 4, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. Plaintiff No. 2 is one of the heirs of Shri R. N. Goyle. Plaintiff No. I is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing and sale of food products and other allied products, retail outlet therefor, restaurant, conference facilities/banquet hall etc. from the property in question, which comprises of approximately 12,000 sq. yards and is open on three sides. On the North side the property opens to Aurobindo Marg (Mehrauli road); on the South side it opens unto a street connecting Panchsheel Marg (Outerringroad)and Azad Apartments/kalu Sarai Road; (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Street") and on the East side it abuts a green area alongwith the Panchsheel Marg. It is also claimed that plaintiffs are running a service oriented business for which unobstructed access to public roads is of vital importance especially considering the fact that the number of their patrons averages over 450 per day. For the last about four decades plaintiffs primarily have been using two gates, one opening on the Aurobindo Marg on the North of the property and to the road connecting to Panchsheel Marg on the South side.
( 3 ) THE dispute according to the plaintiffis as regards the South side gate which according to the plaintiff is very vital for its business, considering the fact that Aurobindo Marg is a heavy traffic main road, which is also part of VIP traffic movement. It is alleged that on the south side of the property, plaintiff had a heavy duty gate and has properly illuminated the area with halogen lights etc. for the convenience of those visiting the property. The gate in question has always been used as ingress and egress unto and from the property. Street towards South has always been and even presently been used by pedestrians, cyclists and all kinds of vehicular traffic for going to/from Panchsheel Marg and Kalu Sarai as a street. Even in the Revenue Records, the property of the plaintiffs has been shown to be comprising of Khasra Nos-127, 128, 131,286/133 and part of Khasra No. 126 i. e. 321/126and322/126 of which Khasra No. 127and286/133abutand open unto the street which is on the south side. Khasra No. 131 abuts and opens to Aurbindo Marg on the North side.
( 4 ) IT is further alleged that defendant is in occupation of property adjacent to and sharing a common boundary with the property on the North West side where there is a bus depot. Some time back, it is alleged, that defendant unauthorisedly and illegally encroached upon the street by constructing a super structure at the mouth of the street on the Western side, facing Azad Multi-storied Apartments upto Khasra No. 127 belonging to the plaintiffs on the South side. There is an entry point on the Azad Apartments/kalu Sarai Road which is used by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic as an entrance to the street.
( 5 ) IN the morning of 18th April, 1995, it is alleged that 25 to 30 officers/ employees of the defendant, armed with lathis and iron rods, broke into the property of the plaintiffs from the south gate. This mob alleged to have been guided by Mr. Gupta, General Manager (T), who caused seve
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
