* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 29^th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 10^th April, 2026 + RSA 22/2026, CM APPL. 6181/2026 SH. AJIT SINGH (DECEASED)

Through his LRs A. SH. GAJINDER SINGH S/o Late Sh. Ajit Singh B. SH. RAVINDER SINGH S/o Late Sh. Ajit Singh C. SH. SURINDER SINGH S/o Late Sh. Ajit Singh D. SMT. SUSHILA DEVI W/o Late Sh. Narinder Singh E. SH. NARESH KUMAR S/o Late Sh. Narinder Singh F. SMT. USHA MEHLAWAT W/o Sh. Sandeep Mehlawat D/o Late Sh. Narinder Singh G. SMT. POOJA DALAL W/o Sh. Sanjeev Dalal D/o Late Sh. Narinder Singh H. SMT. REKHA SEHRAWAT W/o Sh. Sanjay Sehrawat D/o Late Sh. Narinder Singh I. SMT. RANI W/o Sh. Shyam All R/o House No.F-189, Village & Post Office Lado Sarai, Delhi-110030.

….Appellant Through: Mr. V.P. Rana and Mr. Aviral Jain, Advocates.

VERSUS

1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Its vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023.

2. UNION OF INDIA Through Secretary Ministry of Works & Urban Development Govt. of India, New Delhi-110011.

….Respondents Through: Mr. R. K. Dhawan( Standing Counsel for DDA), Ms. Nisha Dhawan, Mr. Pawan Karan Deo, Mr. V. K. Teng, Mr. K. R. Madhar for Respondent No. 1, DDA. Mr. Sai Manik Sud (SPC) along with Ms. Kanchan Semwal (GP) for Respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule

1 and Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed by the Appellants, the LRs of Sh. Ajit Singh (deceased) against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2025 in RCA SCJ No. 03/2023, vide which Ld. ASCJ dismissed the Application under Order XLI Rule 3A CPC read with Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, filed by the Appellants, seeking Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal under Section 96 CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2021, of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing the Suit for Permanent Injunction of the plaintiff/Appellant, and consequently dismissed the first Appeal.

2. The Appellant/Plaintiff had filed CS SCJ No.7081/2016, against the respondents, for Permanent Injunction.

3. The Brief facts are that the Plaintiff/Appellant was the owner and in exclusive possession of House No.F-189, Village Lado Sarai, Delhi constructed on a Plot of land admeasuring 252 sq. yards (hereinafter referred as „Suit Property‟). The house was constructed partly on Khasra No.269 admeasuring 10 biswa and partly on the adjoining Makbara / Hajira on the Northern side. The property was assessed to property tax and water and electricity connection was also provided therein.

4. The land admeasuring 3 bighas and 2 biswas was ancestral land and by way of family arrangement amongst the co-owners, the house was constructed more than 2 decades ago, on the land admeasuring 10 biswas out of Khasra No.269. The remaining portion of the house of the Plaintiff which is between Khasra No.269 and Makbara, is a courtyard which is enclosed by a boundary wall. The remaining portion of Khasra No.269 admeasuring 2 bighas 12 biswas has been acquired by the Govt. vide Award No.36/80-81 and possession was taken in 1980. The area of Khasra No. 269, which was in possession of the Plaintiff, was left out from the acquisition as it was built-up at that time.

5. At the instance of certain co-sharers of the Plaintiff, officials of Defendant No.1 started harassing the Plaintiff for the last some time claiming that the property belonged to them. Hence, the suit was filed for Permanent Injunction for restraining the Defendants from forcibly dispossessing the Plaintiff or demolishing the structure existing thereon.

6. Defendant No.1/DDA in its Written Statement filed on 03.01.1991 controverted all the averments made in the Plaint. It stated that land forming part of Khasra No.269 of village Lado Sarai, admeasuring 3 bighas 2 biswas and area of 2 bighas 17 biswas, has already been acquired vide the Award. The possession of the r