Mere possession does not confer legal right, title, and interest in valuable government land. Payment of chullah tax does not create ownership rights in the suit property.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No. 32073/2017 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 761/2017 and C.M. Nos. 32074/2017 (stay) and 32075/2017 (for additional evidence)

2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 10.8.2017; by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession, declaration, injunction etc filed by the appellants/plaintiffs claiming rights in the suit property comprising of 260 sq. yds. of khasra no. 225, Arakpur Bagh Mochi (Moti Bagh), New Delhi. Trial court dismissed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs holding that they have no rights to the suit land and also were not in possession thereof. Appellants/plaintiffs were in fact found to be persons endeavoring to encroach public land.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants/plaintiffs are that they were the owners of the house bearing no. 1, Bagh Mochi known as Moti Bagh forming part of khasra no. 224, Bagh Arakpur Mochi (Moti Bagh) New Delhi-110021. Adjacent to this house of the appellants/plaintiffs was the disputed plot/suit property forming 260 sq. yds. in khasra no. 225. The appellants/plaintiffs claim that they were since time immemorial in possession of the suit land and which had been acknowledged by the respondent/defendant/Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The appellants/plaintiffs pleaded to having paid chullah tax (cooking tax). The appellants/plaintiffs placed reliance upon various communications of the respondent/defendant with respect to the demand of chullah tax. The appellants/ plaintiffs claim that they were earlier tethering the cattle and were then keeping household articles on the suit plot. It was also pleaded by the appellants/plaintiffs that doors of the house of the appellants/plaintiffs used to open in suit property and also ventilators were installed in the house of the appellants/plaintiffs which was the only source of light and air to the house. The appellants/plaintiffs pleaded that on 20.8.2010 the respondent/defendant closed the entrance door to the suit plot despite protest of the appellants/plaintiffs. The appellants/plaintiffs also pleaded entitlement to the suit land or alternative land on the basis of communication dated 6.8.1974 of the respondent/defendant. The appellants/plaintiffs claim to have been illegally dispossessed by the respondent/defendant on 20.8.2010 and hence the subject suit was filed.

4. The respondent/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that appellants/plaintiffs were in unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to the respondent/defendant. The subject land falling in khasra no. 225 was said to be Government/DDA land by virtue of Nazul Agreement of the year 1937. The suit property was pleaded to be in possession of the respondent/DDA being surrounded by stone masonry boundary wall as also a board of the respondent/DDA. It was pleaded by the respondent/DDA that appellants/plaintiffs are trying to cheat and mislead with false intention to grab valuable government land. It was pleaded by the respondent/DDA that in the case of Shakuntala Narang vs. State Office DDA in PPA No. 65/06 vide order dated 16.7.2008 adjoining land of 400 sq. yds. were got vacated by the DDA on 31.10.2008 and whereafter DDA had fenced the land to avoid further encroachment.

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

“(i) Whether the plaintiffs or their predecessors were in possession of the land admeasuring 260 sq. yds. in Khasra No. 225 adjacent to the house of the plaintiffs in Khasra No. 224, Village Arakpur Bagh Mochi, Moti Bagh, New Delhi? OPP

(ii) If the above issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs, what were the rights, if any, of the plaintiffs to the said land? OPP

(iii) If the plaintiffs are found to have any rights with respect to the said land, whether the plaintiffs have been