The authenticity of land records and the authority of the DDA over the subject land prevailed in determining the appellant's right to occupy the land.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the appellant's petition (being W.P.(C) 1720/2018) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The appellant had filed the said petition, essentially, seeking an order restraining the Delhi Development Authority (hereafter `DDA') from dispossessing the appellant from land admeasuring 16 bighas 00 biswas in Khasra No. 341 Min Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (hereafter `the subject land'). According to the appellant, the subject land is located adjacent to the river Yamuna and he has been cultivating the subject land since the past four decades.

3. The aforementioned writ petition filed by the appellant was founded on the basis that the subject land was given on lease by the Government of India to one Pandit Kishan Chand, who had in turn sublet the same to Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Limited (hereafter `the Society') for the purposes of cultivation. The Society continued to pay lease rentals to the Delhi Improvement Trust as the management of the lands with the Society were handed over by the Government of India to the Delhi Improvement Trust.

4. The appellant claimed that he was a member of the Society and had regularly paid rent to the Society, commensurate with the subject land (his share of the lands with the Society).

5. The appellant claimed that on 13.12.1956, the Government of India had decided to lease the lands in question, including the subject land, to the Society for a period of ninety years and the necessary directions were issued to the Delhi Improvement Trust by the Government of India.

6. DDA had issued notices for evicting occupants of the lands including the subject land, which was contested by the appellant as well as several other persons claiming to be members of the society.

7. In the aforesaid context, the appellant approached this Court inter alia praying that the DDA be restrained from dispossessing the appellant from possession of the subject land. The appellant also claimed that it could not be evicted from the said land by virtue of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

8. The appellant also relied on the land records (Khasra Girdawari) for various years.

9. The DDA had contested the aforesaid petition. It is the DDA's case that the said land was transferred by Land & Development Office (L&DO) to the DDA on 03.12.2004 and was located in Zone `O' of the Yamuna River bed. According to the DDA, the land records as produced by the appellant are fabricated and as per the records, the owner of the subject land is reflected as "Sarkardaulatmadar". The DDA also relied on the orders issued by the courts including orders in W.P.(C) 2112/2002 captioned Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh v. Union of India, whereby directions have been issued for clearing of the Yamuna River bed of encroachments by conducting demolition drives from time to time. It was also stated on behalf of the DDA that the committee of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had issued directions for comprehensive development of the Yamuna River bed and the same was being implemented in phases.

10. In the writ petition proceedings, the appellant filed an additional affidavit contradicting its stand in the petition. He now affirmed that he was not a member of the Society. The appellant affirmed that mentioning the Society in the petition was an `an inadvertent error'. He claimed that he was cultivating the subject land and this was duly reflected in the land records. He produced copies of land records pertaining to the years 1972-74, where he had been reflected as `naam Malik va Ahvaal'. He also produced documents for the years 1985-88, 1991-94 and 1995-97 reflecting him as a cultivator. The appellant has founded his case on the basis of the said documents.

11. The DDA claimed that the copies of documents produced by the appellant were not genuine and the learned Single