Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 691
High Court of Delhi
V.K. SHALI, J.
Riazuddin & Others – Appellants
Versus
DDA & Others – Respondents
RSA Nos. 226, 235 of 2008
Decided On : 28-04-2015
For the Appellants :Samrat Nigam, S.K. Jain, Garima Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Rajiv Bansal, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession post-acquisition does not create a valid interest in the property, and the sufficiency of right of hearing and representation complies with due process of law.
Headnote:
Acquisition Proceedings - Property Dispute - [Acquisition Proceedings] - [Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4] - The court discussed the legality of acquisition proceedings and the subsequent transfer of property rights. It highlighted the finality of acquisition proceedings and the invalidity of subsequent transactions. The court emphasized that possession post-acquisition cannot create a valid interest in the property. The judgment also addressed the concept of due process of law and the sufficiency of right of hearing and representation in compliance with due process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute arising from a civil suit filed in 1988, where the appellant claimed lawful tenancy and the respondent, DDA, contested the claim based on acquisition proceedings and subsequent transfers of property rights. The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, but the first appellate court allowed the DDA's appeal, ordering the eviction of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent transactions post-acquisition were invalid, and the possession post-acquisition did not create a valid interest in the property. It held that the appellant's possession, even if established, was of no consequence due to the finality of acquisition proceedings. The court also emphasized that the right of hearing and representation sufficed as compliance with due process of law.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of acquisition proceedings, the validity of subsequent property transactions, the sufficiency of the appellant's possession post-acquisition, and the compliance with due process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finality of acquisition proceedings, the invalidity of subsequent property transactions, and the sufficiency of right of hearing and representation as compliance with due process of law.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises within a specified timeframe. The court also ordered police assistance for the appellant's ejectment, emphasizing the finality of acquisition proceedings and the need to respect the orders of the Apex Court.
1. This order shall dispose of RSA No.226/2008 and RSA No.235/2008 filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2008 (impugned judgment) passed by the first appellate court in RCA No. 24/2007 and RCA No.27/2007.
2. I have heard Mr. Samrat Nigam, the learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.226/2008 and learned counsel for the appellant in the connected appeal RSA No.235/2008. I have also heard Mr. Rajiv Bansal, the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA.
3. Before dealing with the submissions of Mr.Samrat Nigam, the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be pertinent to give a brief background of the cases.
4. Both the regular second appeals arise out of Civil Suit No.594/2006. The said suit was filed by one Sh. Manmohan Krishan against two persons namely Sh.Rajiv Chopra and Sh.Subhash C.Gogia (defendant Nos.1 and 2 respectively) in which the DDA was also impleaded as defendant No.3. This suit was instituted on 24.05.1988.
5. Manmohan Krishan had filed a suit for perpetual injunction in which Riazuddin the present appellant was added as plaintiff no. 2, set up a case that he was residing in the premises in question namely K-16 and K-17, Hauz Khas in the capacity of a lawful tenant of defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Sh.Rajiv Chopra and Sh.Subhash C.Gogia respectively who were threatening to dispossess him. So far as the DDA is concerned, it was alleged that they were threatening to demolish the structure.
6. DDA, the main contesting respondent, was opposing the prayer of the appellants/plaintiffs. The case of the DDA was that the suit land is a part of Khasra No.569/297 which originally belonged to one Sh. K.K. Chopra, father of Sh. Rajiv Chopra, defendant No.1. The said land was acquired and the possession of the said land was handed over to the DDA by the then Delhi Administration on 18.07.1961. Sh. K.K. Chopra had filed a writ petition in High Court of Delhi challenging the acquisition. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. A letters patent appeal was filed by Sh. K.K. Chopra which was allowed and the notification of the acquisition of the land was quashed, UOI preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the said matter in Supreme Court, the DDA and Sh. K.K. Chopra arrived at a settlement. Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that a land measuring 1,000 square yards be allotted to Sh. K.K. Chopra for construction of his own house and if done so, he shall give up the challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings.
7. It is the case of the DDA that this land measuring 1,000 square yards was given to Sh.K.K.Chopra and the same is not disputed in the instant appeal. So far as the other remaining parcel of land is concerned, the said land was having the status of acquired land.
8. Mr. Riazuddin filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC before the Civil Judge for being impleaded as a party in the suit on the ground that he is purported to have purchased plot No.K-17 from the plaintiff/Sh.Manmohan Krishan. This application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge.
9. A similar application was also filed by Smt. Jasbir Kaur alleging that she had purchased plot No.K-16, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and, therefore, sought impleadment as a plaintiff. The said application was, however, dismissed and this led to the filing of RCA No. 24/2007 by the said applicant/Smt. Jasbir Kaur. After preferring an appeal, Smt.Jasbir Kaur who had filed an application for being impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit, disappeared and three ladies by the names of Smt. Kusum Lata, Smt. Shalini Goel and Smt. Alka Goel filed a similar application for impleadment as a plaintiff in the suit on the ground that a registered sale deed had been executed in their favour on 23.06.2008 by one Sh.Tiger Singh who is having a power of attorney in his favour from one Sh.Riazuddin. It may be pertinent to mention that not even a single document had been placed on record in this regard showing that the origi
