Landowners must establish clear title or proof of ownership against government claims to avoid dismissal of suits for injunctions on public land, as mere possession or revenue entries do not suffice.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - Brief Facts

1. The Plaintiffs - Mr. Surat Singh and his son - Mr. Nathu Ram/Appellant herein (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), have filed a suit for perpetual injunction before the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, being Suit No.390/2006 titled Sh. Surat Singh & Anr. v. DDA. The case of the Plaintiffs was that they have been in possession as owners of 2,500 sq. yds. of land forming part of Khasra No. 48/7 in the revenue estate of Humayunpur, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property"), since the time of their forefathers. The Plaintiffs claim to have constructed a house bearing no. 20-B, Krishan Nagar, on a piece of land measuring 800 sq. yds. in the said Khasra. The suit property, as per the site plan exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 consists of nine rooms, an open courtyard and a tin shed. As per the site plan, there is only one property i.e., B-20, located on the western side of the suit property. On the northern and eastern sides, there are roads and the southern side has a service lane. The relevant paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint read as under:

"That the Plaintiffs are owners in possession of 2500 sq. yards in Khasra No. 48/7 in the revenue estate of village Humayunpur, New Delhi. This property is an ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the same is in their possession as owners since the time of their forefathers. The plaintiffs have constructed a house bearing No. 20-B Krishna Nagar New Delhi consisting of 9 rooms on apiece of land measuring about 800 sq. yards in the said khasra. The constructed house is bounded as under:

East - Road

West - House No. 20 Krishna Nagar

North - Road

South - Service Lane.

In addition to the above construction of the house there is a grassy lawn in the courtyard and some plantation is there within the vacant area of the area.

2. That the area aforesaid and under the construction of the house No. B-20 Krishna Nagar New Delhi has not been acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and the same has not been handed over to the defendant for any public purpose or whatsoever it may be. The plot in suit is free of acquisition and is ancestral property of the plaintiffs."

2. The suit was filed against the Defendants on the ground that on 8th May, 1984, the Respondent/Defendant-DDA (hereinafter "DDA") had threatened to demolish the construction of the house and asked the Plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the same to DDA. Notably, in the plaint itself, the Plaintiffs take the position that the area where the house B-20 is located, is not acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore the DDA does not have any right to demolish the construction over the suit property. The prayer in the plaint reads as under:

"It is therefore most respectfully and in the interest of justice prayed that a perpetual injunction may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, its officers, employees restraining them not to demolish the construction of house No.20-B on a plot measuring about 800 sq. yards in Khasra No. 48/7 in the revenue estate of village Humayunpur New Delhi and to take the possession of the said plot without following the due process of law. The costs of the suit may also be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant. Any other relief this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the plaintiffs. "

3. The case of DDA in its written statement was that the Plaintiffs were illegally occupying a horticulture park, falling in Khasra No. 48/5 and not in Khasra No. 48/7, in the revenue es