RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. On 9th July, 2018, after hearing the counsels, the following order was passed:-

“1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 26th July, 2008 in RCA No. 39/2006 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi] of dismissal of First Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the judgment and decree [dated 27th May, 2006 in Suit No. 624/2006 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi] in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant DDA.

2. The appeal was preferred only in the year 2015 i.e. after nearly seven years of the judgment appealed against and was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. Vide judgment dated 31st January, 2017, subject to the appellant DDA paying costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent/plaintiff, the delay was condoned. On the respondent/plaintiff refusing to take costs, the costs was ordered to be deposited with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and further ordered to be recovered from the salary of the officials found guilty for causing such delay. The respondent/plaintiff preferred SLP(C) No. 9543/2017 to the Supreme Court and vide order dated 3rd April, 2017 wherein the costs aforesaid was ordered to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff and is informed to have been so paid.

3. The senior counsel for the appellant DDA, on enquiry, as to whether the costs have been recovered from the salary of the officials whose action led to the delay states that an enquiry was initiated and probably has been completed but he is not aware of the finding thereof.

4. The senior counsel for the appellant DDA, on enquiry, as to the question of law arising for adjudication in this Second Appeal states that the dispute subject matter of the lis is demarcation of land. It is contended that the land subject matter of the suit is situated in Village Naraina; while according to the appellant DDA, the same is situated in Khasra No. 1652 of Village Naraina, according to the respondent/plaintiff, it is situated in Khasra Nos.1649, 1650 and 1651; that the two Khasras abut each other; while Khasra No. 1652 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Khasra No. 1649, 1650 and 1651 form part of the colony of Inderpuri developed on the land in Village Naraina. However, while this order is being dictated, the senior counsel for the appellant DDA states that the two sets of Khasras do not abut each other but have a strip of land between them. The senior counsel for the appellant DDA, on enquiry, whether the strip of land between the two sets of Khasras was also acquired, states he has no instructions in this regard but there is a school on the said strip of land.

5. The senior counsel for the appellant DDA had contended that the Courts below have relied upon the report of demarcation got done of the land and on the basis whereof have held the suit land to be falling in Khasra No. 1649, 1650 and 1651 which was not acquired. It is contended that under Section 28 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1958, the task of demarcation has to be done only by the Deputy Commissioner and the Courts below erred in having got the demarcation done from the Local Commissioner appointed in the suit.

6. It is argued that the said substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal.

7. Being in the know that the properties in the colony of Inderpuri stated to have been developed on parts of land in Village Naraina have been levied property tax for a considerable length of time, I have enquired from the senior counsel for the appellant DDA, whether the land in Village Naraina, whether it be in Khasra No. 1652 stated to have been acquired or in Khasra No. 1649, 1650 and 1651 which was admittedly not acquired, has been urbanised under Section 507 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, 1957 and whether the provisions of