J U D G M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge-02 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Suit No.146/2014 titled as Shri Inder Pal Bhatia v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, whereby, the suit for recovery against the defendant has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts would exhibit that the plaintiff is the owner of property being Plot No.44, build up on 136 square yards land out of Mustatil No.5, Killa No. 13/5, situated at village Nangloi, Delhi abadi known as Friends Enclave, Sultanpuri Road, Near Railway Crossing, Nangloi Jat, Delhi-110086. The said property is stated to have been purchased vide sale deed registered on 06.05.1972 before the Sub-Registrar.

3. The plaintiff alleges that on 02.01.2012, without serving any prior notice of demolition, the defendant demolished a portion measuring 60.2 sq. metres of the aforesaid property and illegally occupied the same allegedly on the pretext of carrying out road development activities. According to the plaintiff, neither he was granted any compensation nor was he provided any alternative site, despite the defendant receiving the legal notice dated 16.03.2012.

4. Aggrieved by the inaction of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the Civil Suit through his brother, namely Om Prakash Bhatia, acting in the capacity of General Power of Attorney (hereinafter “GPA”) holder, seeking recovery of Rs.19,99,999/- in the form of compensation for the alleged illegal action of the defendant.

5. The learned Trial Court, looking at the controversy involved in the Civil Suit, framed various issues for consideration. However, the plaintiff Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed has been non-suited only on the ground that the GPA holder was not entitled to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff.

6. The learned Trial Court has held that Om Prakash Bhatia was never authorized by the plaintiff in the capacity of attorney to file the Civil Suit. According to the learned Trial Court, the conditions mentioned in the GPA dated 09.01.1996 are not sufficient to empower Om Prakash Bhatia to institute the Civil Suit in question and rather, the plaintiff ought to have executed a Special Power of Attorney (hereinafter “SPA”) for the said specific purpose. It has been further held that when the GPA was executed, there was no cause of action for Om Prakash Bhatia to institute the suit as the same has only arisen on 02.01.2012.

7. Mr. Om Prakash Bhatia, appearing in person as GPA holder on behalf of the plaintiff, submits that the learned Trial Court has erroneously dismissed the Civil Suit. He takes the Court through the GPA in question, more specifically paragraph nos.5 and 6 therein, to contend that the same unequivocally delineates the condition that the GPA holder has the requisite mandate to institute a suit on behalf of the plaintiff. According to him, the said GPA has not been revoked till date. He further submits that the GPA confers a wider power than the SPA and therefore, the observation of the learned Trial Court that the SPA ought to have been executed is not tenable in the eyes of law.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant vehemently opposes the aforesaid submissions and submits that in the year 1977, Government of India came up with a policy to regularize certain unauthorized constructions and the land which was coming in the way of roads, bridges etc. was decided to be acquired while giving an alternative land or compensation. According to learned counsel, the plaintiff had not claimed Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Digitally Signed any such benefit at that time and rather, preferred to file a suit through his GPA at a subsequent point of time seeking damages. He, therefo