$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 16^th December, 2021 Date of decision: 01^st February, 2022 + RSA 64/2020 NATHU RAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Pramod K. Ahuja, Advocate versus D.D.A & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel & Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocates (M: 9211113560)

Mr. Abhay, Patwari (M: 9718392326)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Brief Facts

1. The Plaintiffs – Mr. Surat Singh and his son – Mr. Nathu Ram/Appellant herein (hereinafter Suit No.390/2006 titled Sh. Surat Singh & Anr. v. DDA. The case of the Plaintiffs was that they have been in possession as owners of 2,500 sq. yds. of land forming part of Khasra No. 48/7 in the revenue estate of Humayunpur, New Delhi (hereinafter

East - Road West - House No. 20 Krishna Nagar North - Road South - Service Lane.

In addition to the above construction of the house there is a grassy lawn in the courtyard and some plantation is there within the vacant area of the area.

2. That the area aforesaid and under the construction of the house No. B-20 Krishna Nagar New Delhi has not been acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and the same has not been handed over to the defendant for any public purpose or whatsoever it may be. The plot in suit is free of acquisition and is ancestral property of the plaintiffs.=

2. The suit was filed against the Defendants on the ground that on 8^th May, 1984, the Respondent/Defendant-DDA (hereinafter

The prayer in the plaint reads as under:

3. The case of DDA in its written statement was that the Plaintiffs were illegally occupying a horticulture park, falling in Khasra No. 48/5 and not in Khasra No. 48/7, in the revenue estate of Village Humayunpur. The same had already been acquired by the Union of India vide Award No. 1170/61 notified on 3^rd November, 1961 and was placed at the disposal of DDA. Accordingly, DDA alleged that the Plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in the suit property and the intention of the Plaintiffs was only to grab DDA9s land by unauthorizedly constructing their house on the same. DDA further contended that the Plaintiffs could not have challenged the said acquisition by way of a civil suit as the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

4. In view of these pleadings before the Trial Court, vide order dated

13^th December, 1989, the Trial Court appointed the Tehsildar, Mehrauli as the Local Commissioner, to inspect the suit property and find out whether the suit property fell within Khasra No.48/7 or 48/5 as also to ascertain the area of the suit property. The said Local Commissioner9s report was submitted to the Trial Court. In the report, the Local Commissioner stated that he could not do the exact demarcation as the fixed points required for the same were not ascertainable. He relied upon a sale transaction of 1953 and 1959 in favour of a retired government servant whose property was located behind the suit property, and concluded that since in the said transaction, the property was described as having been located in Khasra No. 48/7, the suit property is also located in Khasra No. 48/7. The relevant extracts of the said report are as under:

In this circumstances, explained above, other source of points xxx. It was found that plaintiffs have sold a portion of Khasra No. 48/7, to Sh. Sen Gupta Retired Asstt. Secretary Ministry of Defence G.O.I. and he has constructed house on the said land and still residing there. This transaction was as back as 1953 & 59. Photo Copy of the sale deed were produced before the u/s. I was satisfied with the documents. The portion of land bearing khasra No.48/7, under possession of Mr. Sen Gupta retired Asstt. Secretary M.O.D. G.O.I. was inspected and it was found that this sold land is situated just behind the suit property and this fact certified that the suit property falls in khasra No. 48/7. The construction on the suit land is about 12-15 years old and this lan