IMPORTANT POINT
The concept of 'Due Process' and its application in property disputes, as well as the limitations of the court's powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Shalinder Kaur, J. - The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'CPC') whereby the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi in MCA DJ No.19/2018 titled as 'Subey Singh vs Delhi Development Authority' is impugned.

2. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC seeking interim injunction against the respondent was dismissed.

Factual Background:

3. A narration of facts relevant to the present case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from dispossessing and demolishing the property bearing No.N-13, T Huts, Khirki Village, New Delhi (hereinafter 'suit property'), admeasuring 323 square yards, where the petitioner has been peacefully residing.

4. The petitioner also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 seeking interim injunction thereby restraining the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner from where he is currently residing.

5. On 13.03.2018, the respondent tried to demolish the suit property but due to the intervention of people in the vicinity, the respondent was unable to do so and had to leave the site. The petitioner, thus to legally enforce his rights, approached the Court by instituting the aforesaid suit. The petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC came up for hearing. Vide the order dated 07.08.2018 passed in CS SCJ 270/2018, the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter 'SCJ-cum-ARC') observed that prima facie case in favor of the petitioner did not exist and the balance of convenience does not lie in his favour as the petitioner does not have any right, title or interest in the suit property. It was further observed that the petitioner also failed to show his legal right of possession by means of any documentary proof thereby dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

6. The aggrieved petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Additional District Judge-01, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi (hereinafter 'ADJ') and vide the impugned order dated 05.10.2023, the learned ADJ upheld the order dated 07.08.2018 thereby finding no illegality in the order, while dismissing the appeal. The petitioner now has approached this Court impugning the order passed by learned ADJ on 07.08.2018.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:

7. The petitioner strenuously asserted to maintain his claim on the basis of his alleged peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for the past 50 years and contended that he is seeking protection of his rights on the ground of settled possession and not as owner of the suit property. Reliance is placed on the Aadhar and Ration Cards as well as electricity bills of petitioner and his family members bearing the address of the suit property. It was submitted that the aforesaid documents are sufficient to prove possession title of the suit property. Thus, the petitioner claimed that he has a right and interest in the suit property, which is required to be protected. The petitioner further states that against the norms of law, the respondent is trying to seek declaration in the suit that is not even filed by them by relying on letter No.4(19)/78-SS.II (VOL.II) dated 09.02.1982 of the Ministry of Rehabilitation. It was contended that the possession of the property cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the position of law is established that even a trespasser in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner cannot be dispossessed, even by a rightful owner by taking law in his hand and that such a rightful owner can be injuncted for using force or taking law into his own hands. It was submitted that pos