BIMLA RANI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.12198/2008( for permission to file documents) Not pressed. Dismissed. CM No.4301/2008 (for condonation of delay) There is no substantial opposition to this application. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. RSA No.72/2008 & CM No.4302/2008 ( for stay) This second appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.9.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge dated 13.8.2002 whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant had been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: (i) The plaintiff Bimla Rani represented through her LRs was a widow and had a large family. Her late husband Roshan Lal was in occupation of 386 sq. yards of land opposite Idgah in Jhandewalan Estate, Delhi which was under the control and management of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ,,DDA). The plaintiff had occupied this land w.e.f. 1.1.1962; he paid damages till 1968 i.e. till he was removed. No alternate allotment was given to the plaintiff as it was stated that he was not assessed to damages prior to 1.1.1961; as such he was not eligible under the policy for alternate allotment. Plaintiff has no source of livelihood; she is dependent upon her son; she is a widow. (ii) Vide resolution dated 11.10.1977 DDA had allotted land to other evictees who were not assessed to damages but were doing bonafide business at Motia Khan. (iii) In the year 1985 DDA constituted a committee for allotment of alternate land to the left over and rejected cases of Motia Khan area this came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only in July 1986. (iv) Vide resolution dated 21.8.1986 the DDA resolved not to accept any fresh application. (v) On 9.1.1989 a representation was made by the plaintiff to the DDA but of no avail. (vi) Present suit was filed seeking an injunction against the defendant to allot an alternative plot of 350 sq. yards at Mayapuri Industrial Area. (vii) Written statement had contested the suit. It is stated that mandatory notice under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the DDA Act) had not been given. Case of the present plaintiff was not pending with the department. Plaintiff was not in occupation of the land at the time of the clearance operation. Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. M/s Roshan Lal and sons were in unauthorized occupation of 133 sq. yards of land and were assessed to damages w.e.f. 1.4.1969 to 31.3.1974. Eligible evictees of Motia Khan had already been given alternate sites. (viii). In view of the resolution no.70, the DDA had decided not to reopen past cases of the evictees of Motia Khan of 1975-76. (ix)Trial Judge had framed four issues; which inter alia read as follows: "1.Whether action of defendant is illegal, untravires and without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 53-B of DD Act? OPD

(3.) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD