CS(OS) 2292/2008

Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 20.04.2015

+

CS(OS) 2292/2008

M/S LNJ FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED & ORS.

..... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Ajay Verma with

Mr. Shiv Kumar Dwivedi &

Ms. Neha Singh, Advs.

versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Defendants

Through:

Ms. Mini Pushkarna with

Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, Advs. for MCD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Open Court)

1.This is a suit seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are the lawful

owners and in possession of a land admeasuring 80 ft. x 120 ft (1067

sq. yds.), known as regular Plot No. DD-13, Kalkaji Extension, New

Delhi (for short ‘suit property’). As a consequence thereof, injunction

is sought against the defendants from obstructing with the plaintiffs‟

possession apropos land admeasuring 22‟6 ft. x 120 ft. which is

shown as a driveway/parking in the building plan sanctioned by

defendant No.1 (for short ‘MCD’).

Background facts

2.The facts giving rise to the present suit are that that the suit property

was leased out to one Mr. O. P. Bhasin vide lease deed dated

2015:DHC:3586

CS(OS) 2292/2008

Page 2 of 16

26.05.1971 (for short ‘lease deed’) (Ex. P-1). Vide sale deed dated

23.04.1982 and a supplementary deed dated 06.12.1982, the suit

property was transferred in favour of M/s. Ravi Industrial Promotions

Ltd. (now known as M/s. LNJ Financial Services Ltd.) and M/s.

Giltedged Industries Ltd (Ex. P-2). The suit property was also mutated

in their favour vide letter dated 19.02.1983 issued by Land &

Development Office (for short ‘L&DO’), Ministry of Works and

Housing, Government of India. For construction of a building in the

suit property, a building plan was sanctioned by the MCD (Ex. P-

1/12). Thereafter, Form-D dated 24.03.1993 was issued by the MCD

qua construction in the suit property (Ex. P-9).

3.In the year 1995, by way of various instruments of transfer, ground

and first floors of the aforesaid building were transferred in favour of

the plaintiffs. In the year 2005, complaining that the MCD started

dumping materials for construction of a footpath on the driveway of

the suit property, the plaintiffs filed writ petitions before this Court

and status quo apropos the said construction was ordered on

23.03.2005. The plaintiffs were also given liberty to get the suit

property demarcated and it was so done by the L&DO. Thereafter, the

writ petitions were disposed off on 30.11.2005 with the following

order:

“Petition stands disposed of prohibiting the respondents or

Kalkaji Entension.”

4.An appeal was preferred against the aforesaid order which was

2015:DHC:3586

CS(OS) 2292/2008

Page 3 of 16

allowed on 06.03.2006, whereby the writ petition was dismissed due

to availability of an alternative remedy to file a suit for declaration

and injunction.

5.It is noteworthy that vide order dated 11.11.2013, plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2

were deleted from the array of parties since they had transferred their

rights in the suit property in favour of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6

(inadvertently mentioned as plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 in the said order).

Vide order dated 17.01.2014, defendant No.3 was also deleted from

the array of parties. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.02.2014,

defendant No.2 was proceeded ex parte. In effect, this suit is only

between plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6 (for short „plaintiffs‟) and the MCD

6.It would also be relevant to note that during the pendency of the suit,

vide a letter dated 19.10.2012 issued by the L& DO, the suit property

was converted from „lease hold‟ to „free hold‟ and a conveyance deed

was also executed. Thereafter, vide a sale deed dated 06.12.2012, the

entire suit property stood transferred in favour of the plaintiffs.

7.Vide order dated 15.10.2009, issues were framed. Issue Nos. 1 & 3

were treated as preliminary issues and were decided in favour of the

plaintiffs