$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 193/2014, CM APPL. 12116/2025 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Appellant Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC for DDA with Mr. Aakash Mahak, Mr. Gautam Yadav, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Advs.

versus KALU RAM @ KALU & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Mr. Vijay Kasana, Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Mr. Shoeb Mehmood, Advs.for R-2 LRS of 1, 6, 7 Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC, for UOI % Date of Decision: 25.03.2025.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 12380/2014 (Stay)

1. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions seeks permission to withdraw the present application.

2. In view of the above, the present application stands dismissed as withdrawn.

RSA 193/2014 Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RSA 193/2014, CM APPL. 12116/2025

1. The present regular second appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 in RCA No.57/2014 titled as Delhi Development Authority v. Sh. Kalu Ram @ Kalu and Ors. wherein it was inter alia held that plaintiffs are admittedly in possession of the suit property. It was inter alia held that there is nothing on record to infer that the possession by the respondents No. 1 to 14/plaintiffs is illegal or unlawful as the appellant/defendant No. 1 categorically failed to prove that subsequent to the acquisition of the property the possession was taken over by LAC and handed over to the appellant/DDA. Learned Trial Court further inter alia held that from the testimony of the witnesses, it is established that the possession of the property in question was not taken over by LAC nor handed over to DDA being constructed and situated within the Abadi of East Vinod Nagar and respondents are in possession till today. Learned Trial Court further inter alia held that the appellant cannot be permitted to take law in his own hands and illegally and forcibly dispossess the respondent from the suit property without following the procedure of law.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that this appeal was earlier taken up for hearing by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.07.2018, and the following order was passed:

“1. The appellant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree [dated 24th April, 2014 in RCA No.57/2014 Case ID No.02402C0342932013 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-02, North-East District, RSA 193/2014 Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of the first appeal under Section 96 CPC preferred by the appellant DDA against the judgment and decree [dated 18th December, 2012 in Civil Suit No.530/2009 Unique ID No.02402C0070142005 of the Court of Commercial Civil Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi] of permanent injunction restraining the appellant DDA from dispossessing the respondents/plaintiffs from an immoveable property, without following the due process of law.

2. Though notice of this Second Appeal was issued and the Second Appeal is pending for the last nearly four years, but without recording as to what substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this Second Appeal. Otherwise, against concurrent judgments of the Suit Court and the First Appellate Court, no second appeal lies.

3. The judgment and decree under appeal being only of injunction restraining the appellant DDA from dispossessing the respondents/plaintiffs save by due process of law, and finding that the suit, from which this appeal arises, is pending since March, 1990, I have enquired from the counsel for the appellant DDA as to why the appellant DDA has not initiated proceedings for dispossession of the respondents/plaintiffs and/or for recovery of possession of the property in their possession.

4. The counsel for the appellant DDA has drawn attention to the orders dated 2nd March, 2015, 9th April, 2015 and 20th May, 2015 in this a