GITA MITTAL, J.

1. The present case reinforces the principle that adjudication on a factual situation by strict application of law would maximise public welfare.

2. By this order I propose to dispose of IA No. 4518/2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 and IA No.8011/2006 (under Section 151 of the CPC) filed by the plaintiff. Identical questions of fact would arise for the consideration of both applications. Similar legal objections have been urged by the private defendant to these applications. The same are accordingly being taken up together for the purpose of consideration and disposal.

3. The present suit has been filed by IHBAS against the Government of NCT of Delhi (Secretary-Land & Building Deptt.); Delhi Development Authority and Land & Development Department, Office of the Ministry of Works & Housing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi as defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The plaintiff has also impleaded Het Ram S/o Late Sh. Hukmi as the defendant no.4 and Kewal Ram @ Kewal (deceased) S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh through his legal heirs Kiran Chand; Sarbati and Jag Roshni as defendant nos. 5(i) to (iii).

4. One written statement dated 21st November, 2006 signed and verified only by Sh. Het Ram-defendant no.4 and Sh. Kiran Chand impleaded as defendant no.5 (i) has been filed on record. Shri Kiran Chand has not filed the affidavit required by law with the written statement. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no written statement by the heirs of Kewal Ram (@Kewal) on record.

5. A vakalatnama signed by Shri Kiran Chand-defendant no.5 (i) in favour of Shri M.C. Dhingra, Advocate, is on record. This learned counsel has not appeared in the matter. No other vakalatnama of defendant no.5(i) is on record. Shri Kiran Chand is therefore not being represented before the court.

6. Shri Kiran Chand is only one of the three children of Late Shri Kewal (also described as Kewal Ram in some litigation). The other children of Kewal Ram namely Smt. Sarbati and Smt. Jag Roshni impleaded as defendant nos. 5(ii) and (iii) and the official defendants have not filed any written statement on record. The other defendants thus do not oppose or contest the plaintiff”s claim. The plaintiff may therefore be entitled to a decree on admissions against these persons.

7. It is clarified that the reference to “Kewal”or Kewal Ram in this judgment refers to the same person, in as much as he has interchangeably used these names in different places.

8. The suit relates to land being Khasra nos. 317/17 and 318/17 min admeasuring 16.98 acres in Village Tahrpur. The same has been the subject matter of litigation and claims by Het Ram (defendant no.4 herein); deceased Kewal Ram @ Kewal (represented by legal heirs defendant nos.5(i) to (iii); Ganga Sahai and Inderraj. I. Factual Narration

9. The plaintiff is stated to be a society registered on 30th July, 1991 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Society came into existence by virtue of an order passed by the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No. 2848/1983 People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. UOI and Ors., directing that the erstwhile Hospital for Mental Diseases, Shahdara be converted into a premier institute looking after all aspects of mental health of the citizens. The order dated 12th November, 1991 passed by the Supreme Court of India placed before this court shows that in this writ petition the court was concerned with the issue of the facilities available for the mentally challenged persons. The court has observed that land had been allocated and on principle, shifting of the existing hospital had been found to be indispensable.

10. A gazette notification was further published in the official gazette on 30th December, 1993 issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi transferring the management of the existing Hospital for Mental Diseases, Shahdara, Delhi-95 from the Govt. of NCT of Delhi-defendant no. 1 herein to the plaintiff. As a result, all land, construction, equipment, etc