In a suit for permanent injunction, the party seeking relief must prove their case without seeking a roving or fishing enquiry about the ownership of the disputed property.

Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners, Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC Ltd.) and the Government of NCT of Delhi through its Chief Secretary, have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 21st March, 2012 passed in Suit No.25/2012 whereby the application filed by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) under Order 11, Rules 1, 2, 12 & 14 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed.

2. The respondent/plaintiff, in fact, filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Senior Civil Judge, South, Saket Courts, Delhi against the petitioners/defendants, praying that the petitioners be restrained from taking forcible possession of the said land situated in Pocket-A, Electronic Estate, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”) and also from demolishing the boundary wall of the suit property and the structure built therein including the temple known as Gauri Shanker Kanak Mandir.

3. The petitioners/defendants filed the written statement in the suit and had taken, inter-alia, the following defence:-

(i) That the suit property belongs to the petitioner/defendant No.1. The alleged predecessor of the respondent/plaintiff had trespassed upon a part of the said land and started unauthorized and illegal construction thereon in the year 2001. A complaint in this regard was made to the concerned authorities including the Police and the unauthorized construction activity was got stopped.

(ii) In the year 2011, the petitioner/defendant No.1 invited tenders for the construction of Electronic-cum-Marketing Estate Complex on the said land at Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. The tender for the construction work in the tune of Rs.11,16,92,728/- has been accepted by the competent authority of the petitioner/ defendant No.1 on 8th November, 2011 and the letter of commencement of work dated 7th December, 2011 has also been issued to the successful tenderer.

(iii) The intention of the respondent/plaintiff is motivated and malafide to stall the development at the said land to be carried out by the petitioner/defendant No.1. The respondent/plaintiff ought not to be allowed to come in the way of the execution of the public interest work for the benefit of the public at large.

(iv) The respondent/plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands and suppression of facts and does not deserve any indulgence from this Court in the grant of the discretionary relief of injunction. The respondent does not have any right, title or interest in the land in question. The respondent has stepped into the shoes of a trespasser in unlawful occupation of Government land and has no locus-standi to file the present suit.

(v) The legal maxim, “Actus Curie neminem gravabit” that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, is applicable in the present case. In such a situation, the Court would not invoke its jurisdiction to give any undeserved or unfair advantage to a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court.

(vi) The suit land is Public Premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short, called the “Public Premises Act, 1971”). The suit in relation to such land is, therefore, barred under

Section 15 of the said Act.

4. When the suit along with the interim application came up before the learned trial Court on 16th February, 2012, the hearing in the injunction application was conducted and the following order was passed:-

“WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 along with documents. Counsel to address arguments on whether the land owned by DSIIDC Ltd. would be covered by the expression government land for the purpose of law of prescription as well as for deciding the fate of trespasser on government land. Counsel to also address arguments on the aspect whether a trespasser in settled possession is entitled to any interi