BAL KISHAN GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stating the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants filed a suit for mandatory injunction alleging that they are the owners of the land comprised in Khasrano.1756/2, Khewat No.195, situated in the revenue estate of Village Naraina, Delhi, measuring 1 Bigha,5 Biswas, which was their ancestral property. The suit property was devolved upon the appellants on the death of their father and husband of proforma defendant No.4 vide mutation No.3254 dated 21.09.1991. The adjoining piece of land of the suit property comprised in Khasra No.1756/1 was acquired by the Govt. and was handed over to Horticulture Deptt. of MCD for maintaining a park. In the year 1991, MCD made a fencing over the portion of the suit land pertaining to appellants which is about 250 sq.yds. as shown in red in the site plan. Appellants stated that they went pillar to post during 1992-1998 but the fencing was not removed.

(2.) RESPONDENT filed their WS. It was alleged that suit was bad for non- service of notice u/s 477 and 478 of DMC Act; that suit is barred by limitation; that appellants are not owners of the land and they have no right, title, or interest in the suit land; that the entire suit land belongs to MCD which was handed over by DDA in the year1998. In its WS DDA stated that suit land falls in Khasra No.1756/1 and not in Khasra No.1756/2 of Village Naraina. The suit land is lying vacant at site and is under the possession of DDA. It was further alleged that appellants want to grab the Govt. land. It was also stated in the preliminary objections that suit is bad for non-service of notice u/s 53B of DDA Act.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff entitled for the relief of injunction? OPP