Back
High Court of Delhi
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Samanit Enterprises & Others
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Others
CS (OS) Nos. 1441 & 1442 of 2004 & 818 of 2006, 1128 of 2008 & I.A. Nos. 7526, 7527, 7528 of 2013 & 21037 of 2011
Decided on: 01-07-2014
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 11 r/w Order 7 Rule 11 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Possession - Res judicata - Second suit - Demarcation report - Maintainability of - Plaintiffs had prior to the institution of the suits filed writ petitions claiming the same relief as claimed in the suits - Injunction and possession of claimed property was sought - Writ petitions were disposed of as their claim of the land in Khasra No.52/2/2 having not been acquired was upheld - Occupation / possession were denied owing to the demarcation report as it was situated in Khasra No.51 - Order had attained finality - Demarcation report was not challenged - No liberty was granted to take appropriate proceedings for challenging the demarcation - Suits were filed after two years from the disposal of the writ petitions - Held, conduct of the plaintiffs amounts to unequivocal acceptance by them of the demarcation report dated 20.04.2000 - Possession of properties, as claimed by plaintiffs and the governmental authorities respectively, stood decided - Plaintiff could not re-agitate the same question in the subsequent suits.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 11 r/w Order 7 Rule 11 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Possession - Liberty to file second suit - Demarcation report - Another two plaintiffs, prior to the filing of the suits had preferred writ petitions and which were dismissed - Liberty was granted to file the appropriate proceedings challenging the demarcation report - Such liberty was given, perhaps because the said plaintiffs were not parties to the writ petitions which were disposed of vide order dated 08.01.2003 - While granting such liberty in one of the orders, the expression "liberty to file suit" was also used - Use of such expression cannot create a right to file a suit which does not lie - Suit is not maintainable.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Section 1, 2(a) & (c) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Section 30 - Possession - Injunction - Maintainability of suits - Dismissal of - Prior to the institution of the suit a writ petitions was filed claiming the same relief - Writ petitions were disposed of the order that the land in Khasra No. 52/2/2 having not been acquired was upheld - Still they were denied the relief of restraining the defendant DDA from dispossessing them from the immovable properties in their occupation - Relief was denied owing to the demarcation report as the property in their possession / occupation was situated not in Khasra No. 52/2/2 - Order had attained finality - Neither objections had been raised nor demarcation report was challenged - Suits were filed after two years from the disposal of the writ petitions, when demolition was initiated - Suits fail and are dismissed.
1. All these four suits concern the same property and were consolidated and the aspect of their maintainability is for consideration.
2. The two plaintiffs in CS(OS) No.1441/2004 viz. M/s Samanit Enterprises, a partnership firm and its partner Sh. Ashok Gupta (since deceased, through his legal representatives) and the two plaintiffs in CS(OS) No.1442/2004 viz. M/s Ultimate Services Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Mr. G. Verghese, in or about the year 1997 filed Civil Writ No.533/1997 and Civil Writ No.534/1997 respectively in this Court and which writ petitions were disposed of vide common order dated 08.01.2003. The said order records:
(i) that on 03.09.1957, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued, seeking to acquire besides other lands, land measuring 1 bigha and 13 biswas comprising Khasra No.51 and 1 bigha and 18 biswas comprising Khasra No.52 situated in village Humayunpur, Delhi;
(ii) that vide award No.1170, the aforesaid 1 bigha 13 biswas of land comprising Khasra No.51 and 1 bigha of land out of Khasra No.52, comprising of total 1 bigha and 18 biswas was acquired;
(iii) that another award No.1170A was made on 23.10.1963 vide which another 11 biswas of land out of Khasra No.52 was acquired;
(iv) thus 7 biswas of land out of Khasra No.52 remained to be acquired;
(v) no further proceedings were taken with respect to the said 7 biswas of land and thus the acquisition proceedings initiated with respect to the said 7 biswas of land lapsed;
(vi) the petitioners in both the writ petitions claimed to be subsequent purchasers from the previous owners and claimed to have acquired title in the said 7 biswas of land which, in the revenue records, was described as Khasra No.52/2/2 of village Humayunpur and had filed the writ petitions for declaration that there was no award made with respect to the said 7 biswas of land and to restrain the respondents in the writ petitions i.e. Union of India and another from taking possession of the said 7 biswas of land;
(vii) that though the petitioners (i.e. the plaintiffs in CS(OS) No.1441/2004 and CS(OS) 1442/2004) were entitled to the relief to the extent that 7 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.52/2/2 of village Humayunpur was free from acquisition but were not entitled to the relief of restraining the respondents in the writ petition from not taking over the possession of the land in their occupation, in view of the report of demarcation dated 20.04.2000 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Hauz Khas, New Delhi appointed to take steps to identify the land measuring 7 biswas and in which report, it was stated that the buildings/plot occupied by the petitioners fell in Khasra No.51 which was acquired land;
(viii) accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of declaring that the land comprised in Khasra No.52/2/2 measuring 7 biswas was free from acquisition but declining the relief of restraining the respondents from not taking possession of the land in occupation of the petitioners.
3. The plaintiffs in CS(OS) No.1441/2004 and CS(OS) No.1442/2004 after nearly two years of the disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions filed by them (the writ petitions as aforesaid were disposed of on 08.01.2003 and the suits came up first before this Court on 14.12.2004 and 15.12.2004 respectively) instituted the suits for the relief of declaration that the demarcation report dated 20.04.2000 aforesaid is incorrect, illegal and bad in law and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in both the suits from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in and on the land measuring 7 biswas comprised in Khasra No.52/2/2 of village Humayunpur.
4. Though vide ex parte ad-interim order dated 14.12.2004 in CS(OS) No.1441/2004, while issuing summons of the said suit, status quo was directed to be maintained but vide order dated 15.12.2004 in CS(OS) 1441/2004, the application of the plaintiffs for interim relief of restraining
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
