DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PUSHPA LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree [dated 19th January, 2011 of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-05 (Central)] of dismissal of Regular First Appeal being RCA No.28/2009/2005 under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant/defendant Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the judgment and decree [dated 1st February, 2005 of the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No.564/1993] allowing the suit of the predecessor of the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellant/defendant DDA and its officials as well as against the Union of India (UOI) (respondent no.9 herein), restraining the appellant/defendant DDA and its officials from forcibly or illegally demolishing the room/khoka situated in Khasra No.2931/1661/2/1 in Khewat No.178, Khatauni No.479 of village Mehrauli, New Delhi.

(2.) The suit, from which this Second Appeal arises, was filed by Sh. Hans Raj son of Pandit Shri Kishan, predecessor of the respondents/plaintiffs herein, against the appellant/defendant DDA, it officials and UOI, for permanent injunction to restrain the appellant/defendant DDA, its officials and UOI from demolishing the room/khoka situated in Khasra No.2931/1661/2/1 in Khewat No.178 and Khatauni No.479 situated at Mehrauli, Delhi, pleading that (i) the respondents/plaintiffs were the co-owners/co-bhumidhars in possession thereof by virtue of entries in the Khasra Girdawari; (ii) the names of the respondents/plaintiffs along with other co-owners and co-bhumidhars viz. Pandit Jagannath son of Kanhaiyalal and Sh. Prag Dutt son of Pandit Shri Kishan were entered in the Khasra Girdawari; (iii) the respondents/plaintiffs had become the owner and were in possession of the said khasra by virtue of 'declared suit duly decreed' in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs; the certified copy of order/judgment of declaration in suit No.479/1969 passed by the then Court of Sh. Ravi Kumar, Sub-Judge, Delhi was being filed; (iv) the said land consisted of open cultivated land and the respondents/plaintiffs had constructed a room/khoka on the said land and the said room/khoka was duly mentioned in the earlier suit for declaration which was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against UOI; (v) the said room/khoka measuring 15x10 was in existence prior to the institution of the suit No.479/1969 which was decreed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and the room/khoka was still in existence; (vi) the respondents/plaintiffs had moved an application before the competent Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for demarcation of the said khasra and the said application was pending; (vii) the said land was not notified and acquired by the government or by the local authorities and was free from all encumbrances; and, (viii) the appellant/defendant DDA, illegally and without any reason was threatening to demolish the said constructed room/khoka.

(3.) The appellant/defendant DDA contested the suit by filing a written statement, inter alia pleading that (i) Khasra No.29/2931/1661/2/1 of village Mehrauli, was a Gaon Sabha land and on urbanization of the said village, the same vested in the Central Government and was placed at the disposal of DDA for the purpose of development and maintenance, vide Notification dated 20th August, 1974; (ii) the respondents/plaintiffs or any other person had no right to the said land and the appellant/defendant DDA was within its right to protect its land from any unauthorized encroachment/construction; and, (iii) denying that the deceased respondent/plaintiff Hansraj was the co-owner or co-bhumidhar of the land.