Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1057
High Court of Delhi
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Sanatan Dharam Mandir Society
Versus
Union of India & Others
RFA No. 753 of 2010
Decided on : 26-08-2013
For the Appellant:Anand Yadav, Ms. Anita Tomar, Advocates.
For the Defendants:Jaswinder Singh, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving ownership and rights to property, as well as the significance of established acquisition proceedings in property disputes.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Temple Property - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Cantonments Act, 2006 - Section 6 Notification, General Land Register - The court discussed the ownership of the temple land, acquisition proceedings, and the maintenance of the General Land Register. It highlighted the failure to prove private ownership, the acquisition of the land, and the lack of rights to the temple or the land, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a society managing a temple, filed a suit seeking injunctions against interference with the temple land and for entry in the General Land Register. The respondents contested, claiming the land was acquired and the temple was an unauthorized construction on defense land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove ownership or rights to the temple land, and the acquisition of the land was established. It dismissed the suit, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the appellant's claims.
Issues: Ownership of temple land, completion of acquisition proceedings, rights to the temple and land, and maintenance of the General Land Register.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant failed to establish any rights to the temple or the land, and the acquisition of the land was proven. It emphasized the lack of evidence and dismissed the suit.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs against the appellant, and no interim protection was granted due to the appellant's status as a trespasser.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010 of the Court of Additional District Judge-17 (Central), Delhi of dismissal of suit No.590/2008 filed by the appellant / plaintiff.
2. Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. Though the Union of India (UOI) through Ministry of Defence, Director General Defence Estates and Defence Estates Officer were already before this Court as respondents / defendants but an application was filed by the Director General, National Security Guards (NSG), Palam for impleadment in the present appeal claiming that certain portions of the land subject matter of this appeal had been transferred to them. The appellant / plaintiff did not oppose the said impleadment which was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2011 and on which date the appeal also was admitted for hearing. During the hearing on 22.02.2012 the counsel for the appellant / plaintiff confined the relief to a very limited area of land underneath the temple and some area around it and which was stated to be not more than approximately 10% to 15% of the land with respect to which the suit was originally filed; some suggestions for amicable settlement were also mooted on that date. However no settlement could be reached between the parties, as recorded in the order dated 18.03.2013. The newly impleaded respondent i.e. Director General, NSG thereafter filed CM No.8827/2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to lead additional evidence. Though there was no interim order in the appeal till then but the appellant / plaintiff moved an application in the summer break of the year 2013 and on which application vide order dated 19.06.2013 the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, on 02.07.2013, the counsel for the respondents / defendants having expressed urgency, the appeal was posted for hearing for today. The counsels have been heard.
3. The appellant / plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises pleading:
(i) that it is a Society registered with the Registrar of Societies vide Registration No.14281/84 with the object inter alia of management of the property and assets of Sanatan Dharam Mandir situated in village Mehram Nagar;
(ii) that the land falling in the revenue Estate of village Mehram Nagar was acquired way back in the year 1911-12 but the land falling in village abadi and of temple was not acquired and has always remained the property and assets of the temple;
(iii) that the said land and temple was earlier maintained by the villagers of Mehram Nagar and since 1984 by the Managing Committee of the appellant / plaintiff Society;
(iv) that the appurtenant land is being used for religious purposes especially during the days of festivals and fairs;
(v) that the total area of the temple along with its appurtenant land and Johar (Water Pond) is approximately 3.33 acres;
(vi) that the respondents / defendants are duty bound to enter in the General Land Register of Cantonment, the fact of the said 3.33 acres being non-defence land and of the temple which is at least few centuries old being managed by the appellant / plaintiff;
(vii) that the temple along with its said appurtenant land and Johar is bounded on South side by the Campus of NSG bearing Survey No.281; and
(viii) that the officials of the respondents / defendants in the second week of May, 2004 attempted to encroach upon the appellant / plaintiff’s land inspite of the fact that they have no concern whatsoever with the land of the temple; the temple is situated outside the defence land.
The suit was thus filed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from interfering in the affairs of the appellant / plaintiff and from encroaching upon the land of the appellant / plaintiff and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents / defendants to allot a survey number to the temple and its appurtenant land and to enter the same in the General Land Registe
