VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/defendant no. 2 challenging the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 15.1.2007 and the First Appellate Court dated 25.4.2015; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for injunction filed by respondent no. 1/plaintiff and restrained the appellant/defendant no.2 from dispossessing the respondent no. 1/plaintiff from the suit property without the due process of law. The suit property is House no. E-64, Krishna Park Extension, Vikaspuri, Delhi.

2. The facts as per the plaint are that respondent no. 1/plaintiff pleaded that he is an owner and in possession of the suit property way back from 1969 and he raised a house on the suit plot in the year 1991. It is further pleaded in the plaint that E-Block, Krishna Park, Extension colony is a regularized colony which was approved by the Standing Committee of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on 8.8.1979 and publication was also carried out in the daily Urdu newspaper, namely, Pratap on 20.11.1979 and English newspaper, namely, Hindustan Times on 15.11.1979. Respondent no. 1/plaintiff further pleaded that he had filed a suit for mandatory injunction being suit no. 68/95 and in which the concerned court of the Civil Judge vide Order dated 13.8.1996 directed the MCD to survey the site in question and take appropriate steps. Respondent no.1/plaintiff then pleaded that on 27.11.1996 officials of the appellant/defendant no.2 and respondent no. 2/defendant no.1/MCD illegally entered into the suit premises and demolished the front portion of the house and did so similarly on 29.11.1996 also. Hence, the subject suit was filed seeking the relief of injunction.

3. Appellant/defendant no. 2 contested the suit and pleaded that the suit land is an acquired land and which formed part of Khasra no. R-34/19-min, 20-min, 21-min and R-35/16/1-min, 16/2-min, 25-min of Village Budhela. The aforesaid land was acquired through Award no. 2183-II/71-72 and placed at the disposal of the appellant/defendant no.2 vide Notification dated 2.11.1973. The suit land was transferred by the appellant/defendant no.2 to its Western Division-II for Budhela Residential Scheme. It was the case of the appellant/defendant no. 2 that on 27.11.1996 it demolished the shops and rooms unauthorisedly constructed by respondent no. 1/plaintiff with police help. The suit was accordingly prayed to be dismissed. This Court notes the fact that the respondent no.1/plaintiff admits to the factum of the demolition exercise conducted on 27.11.1996 in the plaint itself.

4. After the pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“(i) Whether the suit land falls in khasra No. 34/19 min, 20 min, 21 min and R-35/16/1 min, 16/2 min, 25 min of village Budhela which has acquired on? OPD

(ii) Whether the land has been placed at the disposal of DDA under Section 22(1), DD Act? OPD

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

(iv) Relief.”

5. While discussing these issues the trial court has arrived at the following conclusions:-

(i) Appellant/defendant no. 2/DDA failed to prove by demarcation report that the suit property forms part of the acquired land.

(ii) Appellant/defendant no.2/DDA failed to prove the documents being the award and possession proceedings which were proved and exhibited by the appellant/defendant no.2 as Ex.D2W1/1 (wrongly mentioned as Ex.D2W1/2 by the courts below) and Ex.D2W1/2A because these were only photocopies.

(iii) Even if the award and the possession proceedings being Ex.D2W1/1 and Ex.D2W1/2A are looked into, yet, it is not shown that how the suit property forms part of the acquired land.

(iv) Respondent no.1/plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit property and the suit property is part of the regularized colony of E-Block, Krishna Pa