RAM NARAIN AGARWAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A permanent injunction has been prayed for restraining the defendants from creating any obstruction or interference in carrying out the additions/alterations and repair work in the property in suit. Interim orders to this effect were granted on 2.7.1998. Subsequently, the pleadings had been completed and the defendant No. 1/DDA has also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 for vacation of these interim orders. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties the application under Order XXXIX, Rules I and 2 as well as the aforementioned application has been taken up for hearing and disposal jointly.

(2.) It has been contended by Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the defendants that the disputes stand concluded by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case entitled "Sudershan Kapoor and Another v. U.0.I., C.W.P. No. 3351/1991 in which the suit property, i.e., Khasra Nos. 891 and 892 situated in village Nawada Majra Hastsal, New Delhi, was specifically in consideration, but the writ petition was dismissed. It is not in dispute in the present proceedings that the suit property is also located in these Khasras. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the DDA that acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit property have been completed. The interests of plaintiffs, as well as the writ petitioners before the Division Bench, can be commonly traced to Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Mauji Ram. Mr. Sharma contended that since the writ petitioners are similarly placed as the present plaintiffs the dismissal of the writ petition would be sufficient reason to vacate the ex parte ad interim injunction, earlier passed by this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the land in question before the Division Bench is different to the land in suit and that no acquisition proceedings have been taken in respect of the present land. In the plaint it has been averred that the plaintiffs had purchased and acquired land measuring 960 sq. yards forming a part of Khasra Nos. 891 and 892 which are now publicly known as Plots 5,6 and 7 in a residential colony known as Shanti Park, Village Nawada, Delhi. It has been further averred that notices under Sections 4 and 6 had been issued in respect of the whole chunk of land measuring 37,377 sq. yards forming part of various Khasra Nos. but acquisition proceedings in respect of the property in suit did not culminate in any acquisition since the suit land was built upon and occupied. Learned Counsel emphasised that possession of the suit land has not been taken by the Land Acquisition Collector. My attention was drawn to a Written Statement filed on behalf of the U.O.I, in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in respect of Award No. 154/86-87 where it has been specifically pleaded on behalf of the U.O.I, that possession of Khasra No. 890 (0.05) and 891 (1-5) had not been taken by the Government, these tracts of land being built up areas. He has further drawn my attention to the document filed on behalf of the DDA, being Award No. 159(86-87) wherein an area of 317 Bighas and 13 Biswas from the Khasra Nos. in question was excluded from that award. He has further submitted on the basis of the award itself that the entire land in Khasra Nos. 891 and 892 has not been acquired and that at least prima fade, the land owned and occupied by the plaintiff falls within the land not so acquired. He has relied on R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, AIR 1987 SC 2097;Amrik Singh Sabharwal v. Kanta Devi, 54 (1994) DLT 401; and Samir Sobhan Sanyal v. Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Others, 1996 (4) SCC 144 in support of his contention that a person in settled possession has the protection of law and cannot be dispossessed without due process. He has also relied on AIR 1987 SC 2421 (supra) in which it has been observed that unless possession has been taken, the rights of owners whose land was to be acquired cannot be held to have been extinguished.