R.S.A. No.24/2012 Page 1 of 10

*

HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ R.S.A. No.24 of 2012 & C.M. Nos.3254-3255/2012

Decided on : 21^st May, 2013

MANJU SHARMA

…… Appellant

Through:

Mr. B.B. Sawhney, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Lakshay Sawhney & Mr. Sunil

Kumar, Advocates.

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

…… Respondent

Through:

Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1.

This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section

100 CPC against the order dated 3.12.2011 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant

being R.C.A. No.27/2011 titled Manju Sharma vs. DDA.

2.

Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal

are that the plaintiff/appellant herein filed a suit bearing No.244/2009 for

declaration and permanent injunction claiming herself to be the owner

and in possession of House No.948/20, Gali No.20, Block No.A, Circular

2013:DHC:2662

R.S.A. No.24/2012 Page 2 of 10

Road, Ashram Area, Sonia Vihar, Delhi built up on a plot area of 300 sq.

ft. on Khasra No.334, situated at Village Sadat Pur Gujran in abadi of

Sonia Vihar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. The plaintiff/appellant had stated

that the said house was purchased by her from one Abdul Razak and

Chokhrat Khan by way of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc., all dated

28.5.2001 and since then, she has been in continuous possession of the

said plot of land and the house built thereon. It has also been alleged that

the aforesaid property falls in an unauthorized residential colony known

as Sonia Vihar and the name of the aforesaid colony is also appearing in

the list of 1071 unauthorized colonies which have been recommended by

the Government of Delhi to the Ministry of Urban Development,

Government of India for the purpose of regularization. It was also

alleged that the respondent/DDA had adopted a policy of pick and choose

and partially demolished some portion of the suit property somewhere in

the year 2006 as a consequence of which, the plaintiff was constrained to

file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The

respondent/DDA filed its written statement and contested the claim

regarding ownership of the plaintiff/appellant in respect of the suit

property. It was stated that the suit property was an acquired land as

2013:DHC:2662

R.S.A. No.24/2012 Page 3 of 10

necessary process of acquisition of land had been completed. It was also

stated that the structure which was in existence at the plot of the land in

question was unauthorized and illegal and the same was also demolished

by the officials of the DDA. With regard to the maintainability of the

suit, a preliminary objection was also raised on the ground that no

statutory notice under Section 53B of the DDA Act was ever served on

the respondent/DDA and consequently, for want of notice, the suit was

also bad in law.

3.

On the pleadings of the parties, following three issues were

framed:-

Relief.”

4.

In support of her case, the plaintiff/appellant had examined herself

as PW-1 and her husband (Narender Kumar Sharma) as PW-2. The

defendant/respondent (DDA) examined one Mohd. Ishaq, Surveyor of the

DDA as DW-1. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court

2013:DHC:2662

R.S.A. No.24/2012 Page 4 of 10

dismissed the suit on 28.10.2010 holding that the plaintiff/appellant has

not been able to pro