IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Hari Ram Nagar & Others - Plaintiffs
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Others - Defendants
CS(OS). No. 423 of 2019, IA. Nos. 11365, 11366 of 2019 (u/S.80 CPC) (u/O.XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC)
Decided On : 22-08-2019
Specific Relief Act - Infrastructure Project - 20A, 20B, 20C
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sued for declaration as true owners of land and sought injunction against defendants. Defendants planned demolition of houses on the land. Plaintiffs argued that their houses were part of un-acquired land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit fell under Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, involving an infrastructure project, and thus no injunction could be granted. The court directed the suit to be treated as an infrastructure suit and ordered the defendants to provide relevant documents.
Issues: Ownership of land, planned demolition, applicability of Section 20A
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 20A broadly, stating that any stalling of an infrastructure project would involve a contract, even without a contractual relationship between the parties. The court emphasized the purposive interpretation of the provision to ensure infrastructure projects are not delayed.
Final Decision: The court ordered the suit to be treated as an infrastructure suit and directed the defendants to provide relevant documents. No injunction was granted, and the matter was listed for further hearing.
The court found that the suit, seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against demolition by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), falls under Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act as it involves an infrastructure project (such as hospital extension or road), regardless of any contractual relationship between the parties.[11000640770008][11000640770009][11000640770010][11000640770011][11000640770012][11000640770013][11000640770022][11000640770023] It interpreted Section 20A purposively and broadly to cover suits that could stall infrastructure projects, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent delays through court proceedings.[11000640770013][11000640770014] Consequently, no injunction was granted, and the suit was ordered to be treated and renumbered as an infrastructure suit.[11000640770015][11000640770016][11000640770024] The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, as they could not identify the acquired portion of the land distinct from their claimed possession.[11000640770017][11000640770018][11000640770019] The DDA was directed to file relevant documents, including prior proceedings, and depute a senior officer familiar with the facts and site.[11000640770020][11000640770021] The court noted the lack of awareness among government counsel regarding Sections 20A to 20C and directed a copy of the order to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice for familiarization.[11000640770025][11000640770026]
JUDGMENT :
1. The four plaintiffs namely (i) Hari Ram Nagar, (ii) Paras Ram, (iii) Nirmal and (iv) Turmal have instituted this suit, for declaration that the plaintiffs are the true legal owners of land bearing Khasra No.310 i.e. 310/1 (4-10) + 310/2 (4-10) + 310/3 (4-10) + 310/10 (4-10) = (18-00) – (7-05) = (10-15) and, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants namely Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Union of India and Deputy Commissioner of Police, from disturbing the peaceful and settled possession of the plaintiffs of the said land.
2. The suit came up first before this Court yesterday, subject to office objection as to valuation. However, the counsel for the plaintiffs, instead of arguing on the said objection, stated that the deficiency in Court fee shall be made up in the course of the day and further contended that demolition by DDA with assistance of police was scheduled by the defendants for today. Thus, the suit was listed for today.
3. The plaintiffs have paid the requisite Court fee
4. Though, the counsel for the defendants had not appeared yesterday but finding that Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate was appearing for the DDA in the writ proceeding earlier preferred by the plaintiffs and as disclosed by the plaintiffs, the Court Master was asked to inform Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate of the listing of the suit for today.
5. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for DDA appears today.
6. The counsel for the plaintiffs has argued, (i) that the plaintiffs are the recorded owners of Khasra No.310 in Village Khichripur, Delhi 110091; (ii) that the total area of the said Khasra is 18 bighas; (iii) that out of the said 18 bighas, 7 bighas and 5 biswas was acquired in the year 1971 and plaintiffs continued in possession of the remaining land and have their houses constructed thereon and are in settled possession of the said houses; and, (iv) that though no notice has been served by the defendant no.1 DDA on the plaintiffs of any action intended against the houses of the plaintiffs but the DDA has written to the Delhi Police to provide police help for demolition action scheduled for today.
7. It is inter alia the contention of the counsel for the plaintiffs that the houses of the plaintiffs are part of un-acquired land out of Khasra no.310 and not in the acquired land.
8. Sections 20A, 20B and 20C incorporated in the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by amendment thereof with effect from 1st August,2018, are as follows:-
“20A. Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project.-
(1) No injunction shall be granted by a court in a suit under this Act involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of such infrastructure project.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, section 20B and clause (ha) of section 41, the expression “infrastructure project” means the category of projects and infrastructure Sub-Sectors specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Central Government may, depending upon the requirement for development of infrastructure projects, and if it considers necessary or expedient to do so, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule relating to any Category of projects or Infrastructure Sub-Sectors.
(3) Every notification issued under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree that the notification should not be made, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulmen
AI
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.