$~22

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 28^th January, 2022

+

RSA 12/2022 & CM APPLs. 4984/2022, 4985/2022

RAMESHWAR SINGH

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Devraj Singh, Advocate.

versus

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL

CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

None.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present second appeal arises out of a suit for permanent

injunction filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in

December 2005,against the Defendant-Government of NCT of Delhi. The

relief sought in the plaint is as under:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000345

favour of the Plaintiff.”

3. The said suit came to be dismissed vide order dated 28^th April 2014 in

suit no. 177/2014 titled Shri Rameshwar Singh v. The Chief Secretary,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi passed by the Civil Judge/Central-05, Delhi

(hereinafter “Trial Court”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to prove

his case. An appeal was preferred by the Plaintiff against the said order in

RCA 61015/2016 titled Rameshwar Singh v. The Chief Secretary.

However, even the said appeal came to be dismissed by the ASJ-02/South

East/Saket/Delhi(hereinafter “Appellate Court”) vide the impugned order

dated 30^th July 2021 which has been challenged in the present second appeal

before this Court.

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he purchased a plot of land

admeasuring 1000 square yards forming part of Khasra No. 64/4/2 from one

Sh. Kanwar Singh and Sh. Risal Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 4^th

October, 1985. According to the Plaintiff, the plot was bounded on the East

by a private Raasta having 10 feet width, on the West by a Raasta of 15 feet

width, on the North by land belonging to a third party and on the South by a

Raasta of 30 feet width. From the said plot, the Plaintiff sold 450 square

yards to different purchasers from time to time. According to the Plaintiff,

he constructed a porch on the property which was constructed a decade

before filing of the suit in 2005. It was sometime in December, 2005, that

officials of the GNCTD made threats for demolition of the porch marked in

red colour in the site plan averring that the porch has been constructed upon

pusta. It was this threat which led to the filing of the suit.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000345

5. In the written statement, the GNCTD took the plea that the Plaintiff’s

claim is wrong and misleading and that the Raasta which is 10 feet wide on

the East side of the Plaintiff’s property is being used as a public utility for

more than 20 years over which the porch has been constructed. In the

written statement, the plea taken was that even as per the sale deed, only the

land was sold in favour of the Plaintiff and there was no the Raasta on the

East which was sold to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Raasta was not part of the

property which was sold to the Plaintiff and it was for common use.

6. Trial was held in the suit and parties led their evidence. Witnesses

were produced both by the Plaintiff as also the Defendant. On behalf of the

Plaintiff, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined the

Head Constable Virendra Singh, Police Station, Nangloi as PW-2. The

Record Keeper in the office of Sub-Registrar of Kashmere Gate was also

summoned to produce the sale deed marked as Ex. PW3/1. On behalf of the

Defendant, Defendant examined one Sh. M.S. Narwal who has filed his

evidence by way of affidavit marked as Ex, DW1/A and along with Sarza

plan.

7. After analysing the sale deed on record, the Trial Court came to the

following conclusions:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000345

North: Other’s Property

Sale Deed Exhibit PW 3/1.”

8. Thus, in view of these fa