G.P. Mittal, J.

IA No. 9211/ 2011 (Order VII Rule 11 CPC) in CS (OS) 735/ 2011

1. By virtue of this application, Defendant no. 2 lays challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present civil suit. The contention raised by the Plaintiff is that for the purpose of deciding maintainability of the suit, only the pleadings in the suit are to be considered. In the plaint, the Plaintiff has himself claimed that the land, the subject matter of the suit is an agricultural land covered by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (the Act of 1954).

2. This suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking restraint upon the Defendants through its agents etc. from carving out any unauthorised colony from the suit land. Relying on the provisions of Sections 81, 83 and 185 of the Act of 1954 and the judgment of this Court in Anil Kumar and Anr. v. B.R.B. Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., CS (OS) No. 1332/ 2007 decided on 14.05.2008, the contention of the learned counsel for Defendant no. 2, which is supported by the other Defendants is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such a suit for injunction is barred.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff places reliance on Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Anr. v. Smt. Shanta Sharma @ Shanti and Ors., CS (OS) No. 1920/ 2011, decided on 22.01.2013 and Ramesh Chander Aggarwal v. Ram Pal, FAO No. 240/ 2006, decided on 12.01.2010 to contend that the such a suit is maintainable before this Court.

4. Before adverting to the relevant case law, it would be apposite to go into the basis for filing the instant suit and the ground led by the Plaintiff.

5. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is an agriculturist by profession and is the co-owner and in possession of 1/ 36th share of land forming part of various khatas out of total land of 74 bighas and 16 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Rajokari. Paras 2 to 9 of the plaint reads as under:-

“2. That the defendants are also co-owners in the above suit land. The suit land is governed by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and same can be used for the purpose permitted under the said Act. The said Act is a complete code in itself the right and liability of the parties are controlled and governed by the said Act. The said Act places certain restriction on the bhoomidar in respect of the use and enjoyment of the said lands.

3. That there has been no partition in the suit land till date between the plaintiff, defendants and its other co-owners, the suit land can be partitioned under the provisions of said Act by restoring to section 55 of the said Act. The mode of partition of the land has been prescribed in section 57 of the said Act. Since no co-owner of the suit land has an area 8 standard acre or more, it is not partiable under the said Act.

4. That it is relevant here to point out that the plaintiff is in actual physical cultivator possession upto the extent of his 1/36th share in the suit land and using the same for agricultural purpose with the consent of the other co-owners for the convenience of between cultivation and similarly the other co-owners of the suit land are also using and cultivating the portion of the suit land with the consent of plaintiff. Every co-owner have his right over the every inch of the suit land as same has not been partitioned.

5. That the defendants who claim to be the developer of the land are engaged in the business of carving out the unauthorized colony in the Union Territory of Delhi. It is submitted that the defendants are not the original bhoomidars of the suit land, but they have purchased the part of the suit land from the other co-owners who were the original bhoomidars of the suit land. The defendants are not agriculturist by profession, the defendants have purchased the part of the suit land with the intention to carve out the unauthorized colony therein.

6. That the suit land can b