The court found the petitioner to be abusing the process of the Court and attempting to renege from admissions and a consent order.

CM No.33017/2017 (for exemption).

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) No.987/2017 & CM No.33016/2017 (for stay).

3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order (dated 24th August, 2017 in Suit No.8531/16 of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi) dismissing the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

4. The counsel for the respondents/defendants Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Director of Education (DoE), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) appear on advance notice.

5. The suit from which this petition arises was instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff way back in November, 1996 i.e. more than 20 years ago, to restrain respondents/defendants DDA and DoE, GNCTD and their officers from forcefully dispossessing the petitioner/plaintiff from peaceful use and enjoyment of land ad measuring 12 bighas 13 biswas falling in Khasra No.22/3(4-4), 22/4(4-4), 22/8(4-16), 22/9(4-10), 25/20/2(1-8) and from fencing the said land.

6. An interim order in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and against the respondents/defendant restraining the respondents/defendants from so dispossessing the petitioner/plaintiff from the land was granted in the suit as far back as on 5th December, 1996.

7. DDA as well as DoE preferred CM(M) No.304/2014 and CM(M) No.632/2014 in this Court against the aforesaid interim order.

8. The aforesaid petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7th November, 2014 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 and 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 and 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 and 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