Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004397

CM(M) 520/2022

Page 1 of 7

$~6 (Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 520/2022

PARDEEP

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing

Counsel with Ms. Devika Mohan and Mr.

Kuljeet Singh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

%

18.10.2022

1.

CS SCJ No.750/2021 was instituted by the petitioner against the

Delhi Development Authority (DDA) alleging trespass by the DDA

into the petitioner’s property, stated to be admeasuring 1 bigha 3

biswas and situated in Khasra No. 150/3 and 150/4 of village

Humayunpur, New Delhi. The provocation for filing the suit,

according to the plaint, was the affixation/installation, by the DDA, of

an iron board on the suit property claiming that the property belonged

to the DDA. The petitioner disputed this assertion.

2.

The DDA in its written statement filed by way of response to

the plaint asserted, per contra, that the property forming subject matter

of the suit as per site plan filed with the plaint, fell in Khasra No.144

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:20.10.2022

15:11:42

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004397

CM(M) 520/2022

Page 2 of 7

and not in Khasra No.150/3 and 150/4 as claimed by the petitioner.

The land situated in Khasra No.144 according to the written statement,

stood acquired by the Land and Building Department of the Delhi

Government on 4^th July 1961, whereafter the land was stated to have

been handed over to the DDA vide Notification dated 3^rd November

1961. The DDA claims to have been in continuous possession and

ownership of the suit property since 1961. The suit was also,

therefore, alleged to be barred by time.

3

Clearly, therefore, one of the issues in controversy in the suit

was the exact status of the suit property. The petitioner contended that

the suit property was situated in Khasra No.150/3 and Khasra

No.150/4 over which he claimed exclusive ownership. DDA

contended, per contra, that the suit property, as indicated in the site

plan filed with the plaint, fell in Khasra No.144 over which the DDA

has possession and ownership since 1961.

4.

In these circumstances, the petitioner moved an application

before the learned Senior Civil Judge (SCJ) under Order XXVI Rule 9

of the CPC, seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner from the

office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate/LA Office Hauz Khas New

Delhi, to demarcate the land and ascertain the Khasra No, in which the

suit property fell. The justification for the prayer, as was contained in

Para 4 of the application, which reads thus:

“4. That thus the real dispute between the plaintiff and

defendant/DDA is whether the' suit property falls in Khasra

No.144 min of Village Humayunpur, New Delhi-110029 or in

Khasra No.150/3 arid 150/4 of Village Humayunpur, New

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:20.10.2022

15:11:42

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004397

CM(M) 520/2022

Page 3 of 7

Delhi-110029. Therefore, the present application is being

moved for the appointment of a local commissioner from the

revenue department i.e. from the office of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate/LA Office, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, to demarcate

as to whether the suit property, the site plan of which is

already on record, falls in Khasra No.150/3 and 150/4 of

Village Humayunpur, New Delhi-110029 or in Khasra

NO.144 min of Village Humayunpur, New Delhi-110029.”

5.

The aforesaid application of the petitioner under Order XXVI

Rule 9 CPC was dismissed by the learned SCJ, vide order dated 23^rd

May 2022, forming subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.

6.

The learned SCJ has, in dismissing the petitioner’s application,

proceeded on the premise that Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC could

no