SATISH KHOSLA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the Planintiff has prayed for the issuance of an Injunction restrainingthe Delhi Development Authority from dispossessing from or interfering with thepossession of the Plaintiffs in respect of property or demolishing the gate or theboundary wall. On 12.12.1995 when the application for ex parte ad interim injunctioncame up for hearing, the injunction prayed for was granted. This application comesup for final disposal.

(2.) Ms. Geeta Mittal, learned Counsel for the DDA has stated that she will confineher case to the averments contained in the Written Statement. In para 2 thereof, it hasbeen stated that the iron gate and the rooms with boundary walls falls in KhasraNo.460/368/36 and 461/368/36 min which were acquired vide Award No. 90/80-81and, therefore, possession under Section 22(1) of the DDA Act was taken videNotification No. F.9(2)/78-L&B dated 3.2.1981. Accordingly, the Defendant is entitledto remove encroachments on the land under its disposal in terms of the saidNotification. In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the DDA has submittedthat the Plaintiffs have concealed material facts and, therefore, the injunction shouldbe rejected. It is her submission that the questions which are now being agitated inthese proceedings, are fully covered by the decision of a Full Bench of this court in abatch of writ petitions entitled Roshnara Begum Vs. UOI. AIR 1996 206. Civil writPetition 3318/1991 and C.W.P. 4777/1993 were also disposed of by this commonjudgment, and the legality of the acquisition proceedings were upheld. Thereafter, thePetitioners as well as other land owners had approached the Hon'ble SupremeCourt by means of Special Leave Petitions, and these petitions were also rejectedand dismissed in terms of the judgment passed in Murari and Others Vs. UOI andothers (1997) 1 SCC 15. She has further contended that the Plaintiffs were claimingrights in respect of a transfer during the pendency of the acquisition proceedings.She had stated that the Section 4 Notification in the Land Acquisition Act was madeon 23.1.1965, Section 6 Notification on 26.12.1968 and Section 9 in 1976.Immediately, the persons affected by these Notifications including the Plaintiffs hadfiled Civil Writ Petitions, which were disposed of by the Full Bench, as mentionedabove. She further submitted that the representations made by the Plaintiffs, asenvisaged in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murari's case (supra) havealso been rejected. It was her contention that the Plaintiffs had no right in the propertyand, therefore, on the ratio of G.M. Modi Hospital and Research Centre MedicalScience Vs. Shankar singh Bhandari and other 58 (1995) Delhi Law Times 79,the Plaintiffs had no right to claim any injunction.

(3.) Mr. P.N. Lekhi, learned Senior Counset appearing for the Plaintiffs has contendedthat the acquired land, including the suit property, has vested in the U.O.I. He palcedreliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of the City ofAhmedabad Vs. chandulal Shamaldas Patel and Others. 1971 (3) SCC 821 andof this Court Delhi Development Authority Vs. Golcha Properties and Others 43(1991) Delhi Law Times 314. He contended that there is no evidence to substantiatethat the Central Government had taken possession of the land and had transferred itto the Delhi Development Authority. This being the Position DDA had no locus standito take any action vis-a-vis the lands in question he also contended that since thePlaintiffs were in possession, they were entitled to seek the injunctory protection of