Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Jang Bahadur - Appellant
Versus
Yash Pal - Respondent
RSA 39 of 2022 & CM Appl. 17444 of 2022 and CM Appl. 17445 of 2022
Decided On : 07-04-2022
A plaintiff can maintain an action for removal of unauthorized encroachments on municipal land if they can demonstrate nuisance affecting their enjoyment of property.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 477 and 478 - Appeal against injunction order - Property ownership - Appellants claimed encroachment on municipal land, leading to nuisance - Original plaintiff claimed robust ownership through a Conveyance Deed - Locus standi affirmed for claims concerning public land effects. (Paras 1, 11, 27, 30, 32)
(B) Locus Standi - A member of the public can sue for the removal of unauthorized encroachments on municipal lands affecting public interest, provided a claim of interference with enjoyment of their property is made. (Paras 1, 27, 32)
Facts of the case:
Jang Bahadur and Jitender encroached on land owned by the North DMC, causing nuisance to Yash Pal, who claimed ownership through a Conveyance Deed. The learned SCJ directed removal and restraining actions against the appellants.
Findings of Court:
The SCJ found clear evidence that public land was being encroached upon and that Yash Pal could maintain the suit due to resultant nuisance affecting his property.
Issues: Key issues included the ownership of the land, the locus standi of Yash Pal, and compliance with DMC Act provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that no ownership rights were claimed beyond immediate nuisance; thus, Yash Pal's standing was justified, and his claims could proceed without prior statutory notice per the DMC Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed in limine.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership conflict and encroachment claims (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. framing and adjudication of key legal issues (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 30 , 32) |
| 3. arguments against locus standi and legal standing (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. clarification on scope of injunction suit (Para 22 , 23 , 28) |
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), assails the order dated 22nd November, 2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03 (West) ("the learned ADJ"), Tis Hazari, in an appeal against judgment and decree dated 11th April, 2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge ("the learned SCJ") in Suit 12450/2016.
2. A brief conspectus of the facts may be noted.
3. The appellants Jang Bahadur and Jitender were the appellants before the learned ADJ. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be collectively referred to by name.
4. Yash Pal, the plaintiff before the learned SCJ in CS 12450/2016, and the Respondent 1 before this Court, claimed to have succeeded to ownership of a property situated at A-3/35, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, under a registered Conveyance Deed dated 28th January, 1967, from the Ministry of Rehabilitation. According to the assertions in the plaint in CS 12450/2016, vide the said Conveyance Deed, the aforesaid property was conveyed by the Ministry of Rehabilitation to Moti Ram, the father of Yash Pal. Moti Ram having expired on 3rd September, 1990, Yash Pal, as one of the legal heirs of Moti Ram, claimed to be a co-owner in the aforesaid property (hereinafter "the suit property").
5. According to the assertions in the plaint, Jang Bahadur and Mukund Lal, the father of Jitender, were illegally vending fruits and vegetables on the pavement near the suit property of Yash Pal.
6. Treating these activities as encroachments, the MCD (Respondent 3) removed Mukund Lal and Jang Bahadur from the pavement and discontinued their activities. Thereupon, it is alleged in the plaint, Mukund Lal relocated his activities to an open area near the suit property of Yash Pal.
7. Mukund Lal, thereafter, filed a suit against Yash Pal, claiming to be a tenant of Yash Pal and seeking to restrain Yash Pal from dispossessing him from the pavement from which he was vending. Yash Pal, in his written statement in response to the suit, clearly stated that the pavement over which Mukund Lal was seeking relief was not his property, but Municipal land and that, by way of the suit, Mukund Lal was using Yash Pal as a stooge to carry out unauthorised activities on land belonging to the MCD.
8. The application for stay under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by Mukund Lal with his suit, was rejected by the learned Civil Judge by order dated 13th September, 2004, observing that the land on which Mukund Lal was carrying out his activities was, in fact, Municipal land. Mukund Lal appealed but, during the pendency of the appeal, Mukund Lal expired and no efforts were made to implead his legal heirs. The appeal, thus, abated.
9. The plaint in CS12450/2016 further averred that, consequent on the demise of Mukund Lal, Jang Bahadur started selling fruits and vegetables, on the land earlier being encroached by Mukund Lal, which was adjoining the wall of the plaintiff's property, thereby perpetrating the encroachment.
10. Yash Pal alleged that the activities of Jang Bahadur were illegal and unauthorised as the land on which he was vending belonged to the North DMC. Besides, Yash Pal alleged that Jang Bahadur's action were resulting in nuisance, disturbing the peaceful enjoyment, by Yash Pal, of the suit property.
11. Ascertaining that all efforts, with the Municipal authorities, to remove Jang Bahadur and discontinue his encroaching activities had failed to reap fruit, Yash Pal filed CS 12450/2016, which came to be decided by the learned SCJ vide judgment and decree dated 11th April, 2018. The prayer clause in the suit requires to be reproduced, in extenso, thus:
"It is the
