Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, J.
Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Urban Development Nirman Bhawan, - Respondent
RFA No.123/2009 and C.M. No. 4775/2009
Decided on:21st August, 2009
Suit for declaration of ownership and possession of land, mandatory injunction to correct revenue records, and permanent injunction against demolition of restaurant on the land. Trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the court held that the land in question was public land and the appellants were not the owners. The court also held that the suit was barred by limitation and that the appellants had come to court with unclean hands. Appeal dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of land, mandatory injunction to correct revenue records, and permanent injunction against demolition of restaurant on the land. The land in question was in Village Kishangarh, in revenue estate of Mehrauli. Appellants claimed that they had purchased the land in 1963 and had been in possession since then. They also claimed that they had obtained all necessary sanctions from the concerned authorities to run a restaurant on the land. Respondents claimed that the land was public land and that the appellants were not the owners. They also claimed that the suit was barred by limitation and that the appellants had come to court with unclean hands.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the land in question was public land and the appellants were not the owners. The court also held that the suit was barred by limitation and that the appellants had come to court with unclean hands.
Issues: 1. Whether the land in question was public land or private land? 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the appellants had come to court with unclean hands?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the land in question was public land based on the following findings: a. The land was shown as "Shamlat" (public land) in the revenue records. b. The land was acquired by the government under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. c. The land was transferred to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) by the government. 2. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation because the appellants had not filed the suit within the three-year limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act. 3. The court held that the appellants had come to court with unclean hands because they had filed multiple suits on the same cause of action and had made inconsistent statements in their pleadings.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Present appeal has been filed against judgment dated 28th March, 2009 of Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide which suit of the appellants was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of this case are, that appellant No.1 is a family company of sons of appellant No.2 and is incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. Harbir Khatri, is its Managing Director.
3. Appellant No.2 along with his brothers, is owner/ bhumidar of property forming part of Khasra No. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3, having purchased the same, vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.1963. The property is situated in Revenue Estate of village Kishangrah, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. One Shri Ram Jas and others, including Shri Rattan Lal and Smt. Kasturi, purchased land bearing Khasra No. 2728/1674, measuring 13 bighas 17 biswas, from recorded owners, who were in the possession of the same, as per Revenue Records. Shri Rattan Lal and Smt. Kasturi, sold and transferred all their rights of ownership and possession in favour of S/Shri Parma Nand, Tej Nath, Tej Parkash, Gokal Chand and Ram Dhan in Khasra No. 2728/ 1674/2 (3 bighas 3 biswas), and Khasra No. 2728/1674/3 (1 bigha 1 biswas) out of Khewat No. 164, Khatoni No. 436, vide document registered, on 17.10.1959 with Sub Registrar.
4. Shri Om Parkash and Mahinder Pal sons of S/Shri Parma Nand, Tej Nath, Tej Parkash, Gokal Chand and Ram Dhan, sold and transferred all their rights in respect of above said land, in favour of S/Shri Ram Singh, Dhanu, Lal Chand and Surat Singh, sons of Mam Raj in equal share, vide documents registered on 15.10.1963 with Sub Registrar and actual physical possession of this property was recorded in their favour in revenue record of 1964-65.
5. This property consists of two built up rooms with tin sheds bounded by a boundary wall of stones.
6. Appellant No. 2, continued to be in actual possession since date of purchase, i.e. 15th October, 1963 as rightful and lawful owner/bhumidar and part of same was used for his residence. Appellant No.2 having grown up sons and suit property being situated on a vantage place in the village towards a wide road, they floated a company in the name of appellant no. 1 and started business of restaurant in a part of the property, after obtaining all necessary sanctions from concerned authorities, under the name and style of "Sahara Restaurant".
7. In 1990, respondent no. 2 tried to dispossesses appellants and demolish the suit property on the ground that same belonged to it. Pursuant to it, appellant No.2, filed a suit (bearing no. 2576/1990 also numbered as 211/02/90) in this Court. During pendency of that suit, appellants applied for copy of Khasra Girdwaris of above land and were shocked to learn that said land vest in Gaon Sabha and appellants were not recorded as owner/bhumidar in Khasra Girdwaris.
8. No notification under Section 7 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 (for short as „Act) has been issued in respect of the suit property. Since land of suit property did not vest in Gaon Sabha under any requisite or valid notification etc, nor its possession was ever taken by Gaon Sabha, nor any suit for ejectment was filed against predecessors in interest of the appellants. Gaon Sabha, thus did not acquire any right or interest, whatsoever in the suit property. This land never remained in possession of Gaon Sabha or Central Government and entries in revenue records are false, wrong and illegal. Respondent No. 1 had no power to issue notification under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act(for short as „DMC Act). Appellants requested halqa patwari and kanoongo, to make correct entries in respect of suit property but they refused and asked the appellants to approach higher authorities.
9. The construction of suit property is old and except for making the same habitable and worthy of an eating house, no structural changes have been made therein. Even otherwise, construction at the site is
AI
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
