Point of Law: Special provisions as to rural areas – Allotted land - Not relying upon 2019 notification, although appellant/defendant has placed nothing before court to doubt veracity of same - Relevant part of 1963 notification issued under Section 507(a) of DRC.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface:- ............................................................................................................................. 2

Backdrop:- .......................................................................................................................... 3

Submissions on behalf of the appellant: - ............................................................................ 6

Submissions on behalf of the respondent: - ......................................................................... 8

Analysis and Reasons: - ...................................................................................................... 9

Conclusion:- ..................................................................................................................... 15

Preface: -

1. This a second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short “CPC”]. The appeal is directed both, against, the judgement dated 09.11.2020, passed by the learned Additional District Judge at South District, South Delhi [in short “learned ADJ”] in appeal no. RCA DJ/88/18 as also the judgement and decree dated 21.03.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [in short “Trial Court”], in CS No. 409/11/04; the suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for possession and damages. The learned ADJ, via her judgement, has confirmed the judgement and decree of the Trial Court, passed in an application instituted under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

2. At this stage, it will be relevant to note that, while the matter was pending before the first appellate court, an application was moved by the appellant/defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to seek, leave to place on record additional evidence to prove that village Saidulajab, wherein the suit property is located, was an urban area. The application was accompanied by a notification dated 23.05.1963 [in short “1963 notification”] issued under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [in short “DMC Act”].

2.1. The first appellate court, vide order dated 29.08.2012, dismissed the appellant’s/defendant’s application. Being aggrieved, the appellant/defendant assailed the decision before this court in CM (Main) No. 1224/2012. The Single judge allowed the petition vide order dated 07.05.2015. This order was further clarified on 10.02.2016. The appellant/defendant was, thus, allowed to lead additional evidence before the Trial Court pursuant to the clarification issued by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2016, and followed by the learned ADJ’s order dated 08.03.2016. Once additional evidence was recorded, the Trial Court, vide order dated 01.08.2018, had the matter placed before the learned ADJ. The learned ADJ, thereafter, took up the first appeal for hearing, and as indicated above, passed the impugned judgement dated 09.11.2020, which is assailed in the above-captioned appeal.

2.2. Therefore, when the instant appeal came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant it was contended, that the only issue that arises for consideration in the appeal is: whether village Saidulajab, in which the suit property was located, was an urban area? Therefore, what is required to be examined is the status of the Saidulajab village, on the date, when the suit was instituted.

Backdrop: -

3. Before I proceed to adjudicate upon the issue set forth hereinabove, it would be relevant to etch out the broad contours of the case.

i. The respondent/plaintiff, which is constituted as a society, and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, since February 1977, was allotted, in 1993, a parcel of land admeasuring 1500 sq. yards, located at Saidulajab Village in Mehrauli, by the Delhi Administration. On this parcel of land, the respondent/plaintiff erected a modest charitable hospital with the object of p