IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SUMITRA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. – Respondents
CS(OS) 138 of 2017 & IAs No.3752 of 2017 (u/O XXXIX R-1 & 2 CPC), 3753 of 2017 (u/O XXVI R-9 & 10A CPC) & 5687 of 2017 (of Om Prakash u/O I R-10 CPC)
Decided on : 23-05-2018
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1, 2 & Order 26 Rule 9, 10A - Land - Dispossession - Demolishing the property - Injunction - Claim of lawful title - Neither has a mutation in the revenue records in her favour nor has any registered document of title - Photocopies of documents in the nature of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt, Affidavit and Possession Letter were filed - Held, plaintiff has been unable to make out a case of lawful title - Suit is disposed of, by binding the defendants to their statements that they are not taking any action with respect to Khasra.
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, i.e. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Gaon Sabha, Dera Mandi and the Deputy Commissioner (South), from in any manner dispossessing the plaintiff or demolishing the property/house of the plaintiff built on Khasra Nos.60/8 & 9 of Village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, District South, New Delhi, pleading; (i) that the plaintiff, on 18th September, 2005, purchased a farm of approximately two acres in Village Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, built on Khasra Nos.60/8 & 9, in the revenue estate of Village Mandi; (ii) that the plaintiff entered into peaceful possession of the said property; (iii) that initially Khasra No.60/8 was owned by Ranjeet Singh son of Prem Raj and whose name is duly reflected in the Khatauni with respect to the land and Khasra No.60/9 was owned by Om Prakash son of Chittar and whose name also is reflected in the Khatauni; (iv) that Ranjeet Singh, on 27th February, 1981, vide notarised General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and Receipt, sold Khasra No.60/8 to Braham Arneja son of N.K. Arneja; (v) that Om Prakash, on 27th February, 1981, by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and Receipt also sold Khasra No.60/9 to Braham Arneja son of N.K. Arneja; (vi) that Khasra Nos.60/8 & 9 were, on 24th April, 1996 sold by Braham Arneja by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipt and Possession Letter in favour of Veenita Jain wife of A.K. Jain and Meenu Jain wife of Ashok Jain; (vii) that Veenita Jain and Meenu Jain, on 24th May, 2000 by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipt and Possession Letter, sold the said property to David Paul son of S.K. Paul; (viii) that David Paul, on 18th September, 2005, similarly sold the property to Mohd. Afzal Salmani son of Mohd. Fazal Salmani; (ix) that Mohd. Afzal Salmani, on 11th May, 2006, similarly sold the property to Prince Wilson son of J.I. Wilson; (x) that Prince Wilson, on 27th July, 2006 sold back the property to Mohd. Afzal Salmani; (xi) that Mohd. Afzal Salmani, on 8th August, 2007 similarly by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipt and Possession Letter sold the property aforesaid to the plaintiff; (xii) that the plaintiff has been in peaceful and lawful possession of the property by building a house thereon; (xiii) that the husband of the plaintiff, on or around 10th December, 2006, obtained electricity connection with respect to the said house; (xiv) that the property is bound by a boundary wall; (xv) that the property comprises of a house built on 300 sq. yds., a swimming pool, lawns, orchards, servant quarters, guard room etc.; (xvi) that suddenly, on 17th March, 2017, the officials of the defendants came to the property with 50 armed police personnel and bulldozer and demolished a portion of the boundary wall, servant quarters, guard room etc., without any prior notice, order or proceeding claiming that the property belonged to Gaon Sabha, Dera Mandi; (xvii) that no demarcation was ever carried out by any official and no notice of any demarcation was given to the plaintiff; (xviii) that even if Gaon Sabha is claimed to be the owner of the land, it had lost title to the land as the possession of the plaintiff thereof is for a period of more than three years; (xix) that the possession of the plaintiff is lawful and protected by the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954; and, (xx) that no proceedings under Section 84 or 86A of the said Act had been initiated by the defendants against the plaintiff.
2. The suit came up before this Court on 24th March, 2017 when on first call it was passed over awaiting the counsel for the defendants to whom advance notice had been given. The senior counsel for the plaintiff mentioned the matter at about 1240 hours stating that further demolition action was being threatened. The counsel for the defendants stated that
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594
Jagpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2011 SC 1123
Juglal Vs. Dy. Commissioner 2003 (70) DRJ 256
Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656
Swaraj Kishore Arora Vs. Indian Bank (2016) 230 DLT 269 (DB)
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.