DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. HAKAM SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2004 which had reversed the findings of the trial Judge dated 08.07.2004. Vide judgment and decree dated 08.07.2004, the suit filed by the Plaintiff i.e. Hakam Singh seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants to the effect that he be not dispossessed from his taxi service station i.e. New Amar Taxi Service Station (at the site near Kalkaji, Bhairon Mandir, opposite Nehru Place, Mandir Marg, Kalkaji Mandir, New Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. Suit of the Plaintiff stood decreed.

(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff is that in 1976, the then District Magistrate Mr. Sushil Kumar sanctioned the aforenoted taxi stand in the name of the Plaintiff. This document i.e. the communication dated 07.01.1976 of the District Magistrate had been proved in the trial court as Ex. PW -6/1. Further contention of the Plaintiff is that on 21.05.1980, the then Commissioner of Police had sanctioned the taxi stand as a general taxi stand in the name of the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff is running this taxi stand now since the last 20 years. This document had been proved as Ex. PW -8/1. Further contention of the Plaintiff is that right of the Plaintiff as a tehbazari right had been recognized; the Plaintiff has regularly been paying tehbazari charges to the Defendant i.e. MCD; receipts to the said effect had been proved as Ex. PW -8/4 to Ex. PW -8/20; these documents are w.e.f. 1976 to 1993. Further contention was that the electricity and water connection including telephone connection has also been made by the Plaintiff. The Defendant was threatening to dispossess him from the site; cause of action had arisen on 21.09.1993. Present suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) THE impugned judgment had noted that both these documents do not in any manner establish that the suit land has also since been transferred to the DDA. Testimony of DW -1 had been adverted to. DW -1 in his cross -examination had admitted that in Ex.DW -1/1, there is no mention of the site i.e No. 105 which is the suit land; he has no other record to show that the land had been taken over by the DDA. DW -1 has further admitted that the suit land is a taxi stand and as per the survey conducted it was in the name of Hakam Singh i.e. the Plaintiff. The documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW -6/1, Ex. PW -8/1 & Ex. PW -8/4 to Ex. PW -8/20 had weighed in the mind of the first appellate court to hold that the Plaintiff had proved that since 1976 under the orders of the District Magistrate which were thereafter confirmed by the Commissioner of Police, he was occupying this taxi stand; he was paying the tehbazari charges to the MCD. Per contra, the Defendants have failed to prove their ownership on the suit land or that the suit land has been transferred to the DDA by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. Neither of the aforenoted two documents relied upon by the Defendants i.e. Ex.DW -1/ & Ex. DW -1/2 had any reference to the suit land.