VALMIKI J. MEHTA

1. By this application, the respondent no.1/plaintiff/applicant/review petitioner seeks modification of the consent order dated 07.11.2014 passed by this Court by which the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as also the main suit were disposed of. Counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff/applicant/review petitioner concedes that though this application is titled for modification, actually the respondent no.1/plaintiff/applicant /review petitioner seeks a review of the consent order dated 07.11.2014. Let us at this stage reproduce this consent order dated 07.11.2014, and which reads as under:-

“1. The issue in the present proceedings, which impugns the orders of the court below deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is whether the land which is in possession of the respondent no.1/plaintiff falls in khasra no.22/3, 22/4, 22/8, 22/9 and 25/20/2 between Block F-1 & F-2, Sunder Nagri, Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi or the land is actually part of khasra no.976 min, 977 min, 978 min and 979 min of Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi. Whereas the respondent no.1/plaintiff states that the suit property is located in khasra no.22/3, 22/4, 22/8, 22/9 and 25/20/2 between Block F-1 & F-2, Sunder Nagri, Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi, the petitioner/DDA as also the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi (respondent no.6 herein and who is petitioner in C.M.(M) No.632/2014) contend that the suit property is situated in khasra no. 976 min, 977 min, 978 min and 979 min of Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi. Admittedly petitioner and the Director of Education do not claim any rights in the khasra no.22/3, 22/4, 22/8, 22/9 and 25/20/2 between Block F-1 & F-2, Sunder Nagri, Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi and which land is not acquired land, and the petitioner and the Director of Education only claim that they have rights in khasra no. 976 min, 977 min, 978 min and 979 min of Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi being the lands which have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent no.1/plaintiff states that he has nothing to do and is not staying or occupying khasra no. 976 min, 977 min, 978 min and 979 min of Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi as claimed by the petitioner and the Director of Education.

2. The issue therefore clearly boils down to the location of the property which is occupied by the respondent no.1/plaintiff. If the land of the respondent no.1/plaintiff is not situated in khasra no. 976 min, 977 min, 978 min and 979 min of Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi as claimed by the petitioner and the Director of Education, then, surely the respondent no.1/plaintiff will have complete rights with respect to the land on which the respondent no.1/plaintiff is staying and petitioner and the Director of Education will not be entitled to disturb the possession of the respondent no.1/plaintiff in the land in which the respondent/plaintiff is located as the said land is not situated in khasra no. 976 min, 977 min, 978 min and 979 min of Village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi.

3. Counsel for the parties have taken instructions and it is agreed that demarcation of the land which is occupied and in possession of the respondent no.1/plaintiff be now conducted by the total station method by the concerned SDM of the area with the assistance of the necessary revenue officials at the cost to be equally shared by both the parties. It is also agreed that none of the parties will file any objections to the demarcation report which will be conducted by the concerned revenue authorities in the presence of the parties and their Advocates. The object of demarcation being done by the total station method, and objections not being filed by the parties, is because the report is to be prepared in the presence of the parties and their Advocates, and the same is to ensure that the present l