1.The plaintiff, claiming to be a Mahant of Kalkaji Mandir, has filed the present suit for declaration, possession and injunction through his attorney Mr.Satish Kumar. The attorney is the natural born brother of the Mahant.

2.The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of 50% share of Khasra No.629 measuring 4 bigha 2 biswa, Khasra No.630 measuring 18 bigha 9 biswa, Khasra No.633, 633/1, 633/2 and 633/2/1 measuring 185 bigha and 1 biswa in Village Bahapur. Out of this total land, certain portions of the land were acquired by different awards by the Government of India in all the sixkhasra numbers. The remaining land after acquisition is stated to be 45 bigha and 10 biswa out of which the share of the plaintiff is stated to be 22 bigha and 15 biswa.

3.The plaintiff claims that after demarcation of the land which resulted in Suit No.342/1991, the plaintiff approached the Director (Lands) DDA and asked him to restore the land occupied and fenced by the DDA which measured 22 bigha and 15 biswa as the same was never acquired. It is the case of the plaintiff that the right of such property being enjoyed by the DDA is without authority of law. The Director of DDA informed the plaintiff that the suit land was transferred to the DDA in the year 1982 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India under a package deal in pursuance to the letter dated 4/1978-55-11 on as is where is basis. This position is naturally disputed by the plaintiff and it is the case of the plaintiff that the public authority cannot enjoy and acquire land except by due process of law under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The plaint sets out the cause of action for filing the suit as having arisen in the first week of January, 1998 when the plaintiff discovered that the DDA was fencing the land and apparently raised boundary walls encompassing the said land and started developing the same into a green area by trespassing in the suit property of the plaintiff. The period of limitation being 12 years, it is claimed that the cause of action had arisen only in the first week of January,1998 and, thus, the suit was within time.

4.The plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that the plaintiff was a lawful owner of 22 bigha and 15 biswa of land situated in village Bahapur, Delhi; a decree of possession directing the defendants (UOI as defendant no.1, Land and Building Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi as defendant no.2 and DDA as defendant no.3) to restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove the fencing, boundary walls, if any, as also a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring and changing character of the land and from creating any third party interest in the suit property.

5.It may be noticed that the plaint is verified on 25.2.1999 but the suit has been instituted on 25.2.2000. The verification date of 25.2.1999 appears to be a typographical error as the date in the month are filled in hand while the year of 1999 is typed out. It appears that the plaint was typed out earlier and signed subsequently as in para-13 of the plaint a reference has been made to a legal notice of the plaintiff dated 28.5.1999. Thus, one can proceed on the basis that the plaint was signed and verified on 25.2.2000.

6.The plaintiff along with the suit filed an application under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) seeking interim relief against the DDA from raising any boundary walls around the suit property shown in the site plan in red or from changing the nature and character of the suit as also from alienating and transferring the same to any third party. The application is dated 25.2.2000 but is supported by an affidavit which was affirmed and attested on 16.11.1999. This fact has been mentioned as also the date of attestation as it could have some bea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document