J U D G M E N T

MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for violation of the order dated 19th December, 2014 passed in RSA No. 15/2013. By way of the aforesaid order, the Court had directed the concerned Gram Sabha to initiate proceedings against the trespassers and if the appellant or respondent, were found to be trespassers on the land in question, the trespassed premises were directed to be vacated, by following the due process of law.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite categorical directions, no action has been taken by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate (“SDM”). She further submits that direction may be issued to the concerned officials to take action on the unauthorized construction, existing in the property in question.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached the authorities on various occasions.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, this Court notes the directions that had been passed by this Court vide order dated 19th December, 2014 in RSA No.15/2013, which reads as under:

“Appellant is the defendant, who has suffered a decree for permanent injunction in respect of plot No.C-117 in Swami Shardhanand Park, Delhi. The First Appellate Court vide impugned order has maintained the trial court decree for injunction against the appellant.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are already noticed in the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment and need no reproduction. Suffice it would be to note that respondent-plaintiff basis his claim over 233 sq. yards of land in khasra no.50/2 in village Bhalswa, Jahangirpuri in the colony of Swami Shardhanand Park, Delhi-45 and is said to have purchased the suit property from one Mukesh Kumar on lO"' September, 1998 on execution of various documents i.e., registered GPA, notorised Receipt for the consideration amount oi' Rs.50,u00/- and notorised Agreement to Sell as well as registered Will and a notorised Affidavit. Respondent-plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit property since 10th September, 1998. Whereas, it is the case of the appellant-defendant that he is in peaceful possession of the suit property since 1980 and in fact the suit property is not situated in khasra no.50/2 but is in khasra no.50 of the aforesaid village and khasra no.50 is owned by the Gram Sabha of the village.

Trial court in its judgment of 23rd November, 2009 has relied upon the unrebutted testimony of respondent-plaintiff and one Mr.Vinod Kumar (PW-2). However, First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment had suo moto called for the status report in respect of the suit property from the concerned SDM and on this aspect, the observations of the Appellate Court in the impugned judgment are as under:-

9. Vide order dt. 15.11.11 this court called for report from the office of SDM Model Town, regarding the suit property and pursuant to that concerned patwari Sh.L.D.Sharma from the office of SDM Model Town, had appeared and had stated that concerned khasra no. is 50 and not 50/2 and had also placed on record photocopy of khatoni And khasra girdawari wherein it was mentioned that khasra no. 50 is in the ownership of Gram Sabha.

At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant had submitted that appellant is in long settled and peaceful possession of 110 sq.yards of land in khasra no.50 and in view of the findings of the First Appellant Court in paragraph no.9 of the impugned judgment, the decree for injunction in respect of khasra no.50/2 is unsustainable and deserves to the set aside. To rebut the stand taken on behalf of appellant, learned counsel for respondent submits that appellant is a trespasser whereas respondent-plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property and the SDM's report is not per se admissible as it was not subjected to any cross- examination by the parties and in view of the unre