LEKH RAM Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Lekh Ram seeking the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land/interfering in his peaceful possession had been dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that he was a Biswadar in the revenue estate of Badli, Delhi State, Delhi; he was having agricultural land as well as residential plots in this revenue estate. THE Consolidation of Holdings under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948 took place in the year 1953-54. Plaintiff was allotted agricultural land, manure pits, residential plot inside the Lal Dora of the village along with many other village holders. He was allotted plot no. 42/95 measuring 0-6 Biswas which is the suit property. He has been allotted this 6 Biswas as co-owner of Pana Haveli in the shape of a manure pit, which has been converted in the shape of an enclosure/gher/gitwar; pacca boundary wall has been raised around it by the plaintiff. He has been in possession of this aforenoted suit property since 1953-54. He has been shown as an occupier of this property. In 1976, the Pradhan of Goan Sabha allotted certain plots on papers out of khasra no. 42/9/5; possession was however never delivered to any allottee. On 15.01.1983, the Halka Patwari and other officials threatened to demarcate plots of certain other plot holders, who were allotted these plots. Plaintiff apprehended dispossession. He filed a suit for permanent injunction. Injunction was not granted. THE appeal against that order was dismissed. THEreafter, the suit was withdrawn; the plaintiff, however, continued to remain in occupancy and in possession of the land. THE said land has since been urbanized. By a notification under Section 507 of Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC), the Gaon Sabha had seized to exist; the rights and liabilities of the Gaon Sabha are now vested with the Central Government. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 were threatening the plaintiff from dispossession. Suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code had also been filed. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. This was after examination of the provisions of Section 150 (3) of the DLRA which is also the argument now vehemently raised before this court. The trial judge had returned a finding on this argument in the following manner. The relevant extract reads as follows:-