The main legal point established is that the government's ownership post-acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act prevails over claims of adverse possession, and the significance of possession proceedings in determining ownership rights.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 31.07.2018 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff, and by which suit the appellant/plaintiff had claimed rights in the land/property bearing Khasra Nos. 123(4-6), 124/1(4-5) out of 45-14, 122 (2-17) and 124 min (0-19) said to contain 20 rooms and halls. The total area of the land as stated above claimed by the appellant/plaintiff would be approximately 12,350 sq. yds situated in Village Tughlakabad, New Delhi.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit pleading that one Sh. Roopa Nand, was the ancestor of the appellant/plaintiff/society, who had occupied the suit lands about 160 years ago. Sh. Roopa Nand had dug out a pond/Johar in Khasra No. 123 which was known as ‘chamar wala johar’. A hut was built by Sh. Roopa Nand in Khasra No.124/1. The land is pleaded to have been shown as ‘Shamlat’ (village common land) belonging to Gaon Sabha on the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The possession of the appellant/plaintiff is said to be in the revenue records from the year 1959 till date. It was pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff built a Guru Ravidas Mandir, Ashram and Samadhi of Sh. Roopa Nand and other Saints as also four rooms as part of Dharamshala. The society was pleaded to have been registered in 1959 and the Mandir is said to have been inaugurated by the Minister Sh. Jagjiwan Ram on 01.03.1959. The appellant/plaintiff is also said to have built a school in the name of Guru Ravidas. In terms of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, it was pleaded that though the land was formally transferred to the Central Government, the same was only a book entry. It was further pleaded in the plaint that when the possession of the land was taken by the Central Government, a barbed wire fencing was constructed around the suit land and separate area was provided by the respondents/defendants to access the subject property and the structures therein. It was alternatively pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that they have become the owner by adverse possession as they have been in possession of the suit land since over 30 years. It was pleaded that the respondents/defendants cannot demolish the suit property without any notice. [At this stage, I may note that essentially the contesting respondent is the respondent no. 2/defendant no.2/Delhi Development Authority (DDA)]. Accordingly in the suit, reliefs of declaration of ownership of the suit land and injunction against the DDA was claimed from interfering in the occupation and enjoyment by the appellant/plaintiff of the suit land and property situated thereon.

3. The suit was contested by the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2/DDA. It was pleaded that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 123, 124/1 and 124/2 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and Awards were passed being the Award No. 1533/1962-1963 (Ex.PW1/DX1) and Award No. 1430/1962-1963 (Ex.PW1/DX2). Vacant physical possession of the land under these two Awards was taken by the DDA on 24.04.1963 in terms of possession proceedings of even date. DDA pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff had time and again sought to encroach upon the government land but such action of the appellant/plaintiff was thwarted. A demolition programme was undertaken by the concerned branch of DDA on 05.11.1992 with respect to the unauthorized construction of Khasra No. 123 and 124/1, and which action was also taken to prevent further unauthorized construction. So far as the land situated in Khasra No. 122 is concerned, the same was acquired by the Award No. 67/1986-1987 (Ex.PW1/DX4). Vacant, physical possession of this land was taken on 22.09.1986 in terms of the possession proceedings of even date (Ex.D2W1/1). Since the appellant/pl