Conflicting claims of ownership and rights over the land require adjudication through trial, and the court refrained from making any decision on the merits of the claims.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)--The present Regular First Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned ADJ-17, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi passed in Suit No.174/14 (old Suit No. 212/2008). By way of the impugned judgment and decree, the suit filed on behalf of respondent herein was decreed in favour of the respondent.

2. The present case pertains to property bearing No. H-39, Gali No.3, Shashtri Park, Delhi-110053. The appellant herein claims to be in adverse possession of the property in question. The respondent herein on the other hand claims to be the rightful owner of the land by virtue of agreement to sell in his favour. Fact remains that the appellant had been in possession of the suit property till April, 2022 when the possession was taken out of the hands of the appellant herein by virtue of order passed by the Executing Court.

3. In previous litigation between the parties, the respondent herein had made a categorical statement before the Court that the appellant herein shall not be dispossessed, without taking recourse to due process of law. Thus, the respondent herein had filed a suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction, which came to be decreed by way of judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014.

4. Subsequently, by order dated 05.12.2017, this Court had directed that the appellant herein to deposit use and occupational charges @ Rs.40,000/- per month during the pendency of the appeal from the date of the decree. It was further directed that subject to the appellant depositing the said dues and occupational charges, the execution proceedings of the impugned judgment and decree shall remain stayed.

5. Subsequently, by order dated 09.03.2018, the application being CM APPL.4446/2018 filed on behalf of appellant herein for modification of order dated 05.12.2017 was dismissed.

6. Thereafter, by way of order dated 12.09.2018, a second application for modification on behalf of the appellant i.e. CM APPL. 37225/2018 also came to be dismissed.

7. Later, by order of 20.02.2020, this Court had clarified that in case the appellant does not continue to deposit the monthly user charges before this Court, the stay granted by this Court shall automatically stand vacated and that the respondent herein shall have the right to execute the decree. Thus, in these circumstances, the execution proceedings filed on behalf of the respondent before the Executing Court continued for executing the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014.

8. In the proceedings before the learned Executing Court, the appellant filed objections. The objection taken on behalf of the appellant herein was that since DDA was the owner of the land in question, having been acquired for the benefit of DDA, the DDA was a necessary party and therefore, the decree in favour of the respondent herein could not be executed. The said objection raised on behalf of the appellant herein was dismissed by the Executing Court.

9. Against order of the Executing Court dated 25.01.2020, an appeal bearing EX.F.A.2/2020, Santra Devi Vs. Paramjit Kaur and Anr., was filed on behalf of the appellant herein before this Court. The said appeal was filed in view of the fact that the Executing Court had issued warrants of possession in respect of the suit property.

10. By judgment dated 25.10.2021, the said Execution Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant herein came to be disposed of. By way of the said judgment, the DDA was granted time of eight weeks to file its objections before the Executing Court. It was further directed that if the DDA files any objections, the Executing Court would adjudicate the same in accordance with law. It was further directed that the objections as raised on behalf of the appellant that the decree in respect of an acquired land was liable to be ignored, shall be considered by the Executing Court. The relevant paras of the judgment dated 25.10.2021 passed in Ex. F.A.2/2020 are reproduced herein below: