TEJ PAL SINGH BHATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present order will dispose of an application filed by the defendant (hereafter referred to as DDA); challenging the maintainability of the suit and requesting for its rejection.

(2.) A permanent injunction against the DDA and other defendants from interfering with what is termed as peaceful possession of land, being Khasra Nos. 74/23/2 (Bigha-Biswas), 77/2/2 (Bigha-Biswas), 77/3/1 (Bigha-Biswas), 77/8/2, 77/9/1, 77/12/2, 77/13/1, 77/19/1, 77/22/2, 77/18, 724/23/3, situated in the revenue estate of Mehrauli, New Delhi is also sought.

(3.) 01.1969. It is a common ground that the plaintiffs predecessor- in-interest, M/s. Bhair Traders and Financial Private Limited, claiming to be owners of the land, challenged the acquisition proceedings and more particularly, the declaration under Section 6. It is not disputed that the Writ Petition was withdrawn on 14.08.1969, a copy of that order is part of the record. The authorities proceeded with the acquisition proceedings and drew up the award on 09.12.1983. Sometime in 1985, the complainant DDA contended that physical possession was taken on 21.12.1983 a fact disputed by the plaintiffs. 4. M/s. Montari Enterprises Private Ltd. complains that the DDA was interfering with its possession and unlawfully seeking to take-over the suit lands; it questions the authority of the DDA to do so, in W.P. 1805/1985. The writ petitioner in those proceedings claims to be the successor-in-interest of the original petitioner, M/s. Bhair Traders and Financial Private Limited. The Court granted an interim order which subsisted right till disposal of the writ proceeding by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.10.2003. The Division Bench made an elaborate and reasoned judgment running into 15 pages. It undoubtedly held that the subsequent writ petition is not maintainable principally on the following grounds (1) that the predecessor owner of the suit land had unconditionally withdrawn the earlier Writ Petition in 1969, which consequently barred maintainability of 1985 proceedings; (2) The respondent, DDA had completed acquisition proceedings consequent upon such withdrawal, which estopped the writ petitioner from questioning it and that the earlier order constituted res judicata, barring the subsequent writ petition.