MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this common order we shall dispose of the two connected matters wherein the appeals have been filed by the appellants (defendants in the suit) against the order dated 5th June, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court whereby the preliminary issue of maintainability of suit is decided in favour of the respondent no.1 and against the appellants in CS(OS) No.927/2002.

2. The suit has been filed by the respondent no.1 seeking a declaration that he is the ‘Bhumidar’ of certain lands and that the appellants have no right, title or interest in the said land. He is also seeking the relief of maintenance of status quo for preservation of the suit property.

3. The Respondent no.1 purchased Bhumidari rights in certain agricultural land measuring 84 Bighas and 11 Biswas situate in Village Malik Pur Kohi also known as Rangpuri in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, form the original Bhumidars of the said lands, vide registered sale deed dated 18.4.1967.

4. Prior to such purchase, a notification no. 4(98)/64/H&H dated 23.1.1965 under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) was issued by the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi in respect of some of the land so purchased by the Respondent no.1. Thereafter a declaration vide notification no.F.4(98)/64-L&H dated 26.12.1968 was issued under Section 6 of the LA Act. Notice under Section 9(1) of the LA Act, was issued on 15.1.1981 in respect of land of the Respondent no.1 measuring 80 Bighas and 7 Biswas. The land was placed at the disposal of the DDA vide Notification under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act dated 19th May 1981 and 17th June 1983.

5. The respondent no.1 preferred a writ petition challenging the said acquisition proceedings by filing Civil Writ No.586/1981 before this Court on the ground of undue delay in the finalization of acquisition process wherein while issuing notice on 24.3.81, orders of status quo regarding possession was passed.

6. According to respondent no.1 the orders were communicated to the authorities on 31.3.81. On the other hand, it is the stand of the LAC that an Award was passed on 30.3.81 and the possession of the land was taken over. It happened before the orders dated 24.3.1981 of status quo were communicated to the respondent on 31.3.81.

7. This writ petition was dismissed by a Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 14th December,1985 along with a batch of W.P and the same is reported as Roshnara Begum vs. UOI [1996(61) DLT 206].

8. Against this order, the appeal preferred in Supreme Court by the Respondent no. 1 was also dismissed and reported as Murari vs. UOI 1997(1) SCC 15 wherein the validity of the acquisition proceedings was upheld.

9. While dismissing the Civil Appeal, the Supreme Court permitted the respondent no. 1 to approach the State with request to withdraw from acquisition in case the said land was not required for any other purpose.

10. Relying upon the said order the respondent no. 1 made a representation to the Government under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act which was rejected. Thereafter respondent No.1 filed the Writ petition being WP(C) No. 233/97 challenging the decision of the State rejecting the representation which is still pending before this Court and the interim orders have been passed in the said writ petition not to dispossess respondent No.1. The said interim orders are continued from time to time and are still in force.

11. The respondent no.1 also filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Assistant on 13.7.82 seeking corrections in Khasra Gidawari.

12. According to the respondent no.1 on 09.03.83 report of the Land Acquisition Collector was called for in the said proceedings, and on receiving the report it was held that since the acquisition proceedings are complete, if the respondent continues to be in possession, the same would amount to the encroachment and rejected the claim of the responde