KARAN SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 29.8.2002 dismissing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs by which recovery of Rs.4,91,205/- was sought on account of alleged illegal demolition of property of the appellants/plaintiffs.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs claim to be the owners of construction situated at Khasra Nos. 832/3 (7 biswas i.e. 350 sq. yds.) and 833 (2 bighas and 7 biswas i.e. 2350 sq. yds), in village Dera Mandi, New Delhi-110 047. It was averred by the appellants/plaintiffs in the plaint that a suit for injunction was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, and in which suit on 7.1.1994 the concerned Sub Judge passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. This status quo order was extended upto 10.2.1994 in terms of order dated 20.1.1994. It is further pleaded that in violation of the injunction order, the suit property was demolished on 2.2.1994. It was alleged that the illegal demolition which had taken place was part of the house, chajja and wall. The appellants/plaintiffs, thereafter, served a legal notice dated 19.3.1994 and on account of stated failure of the respondents to pay damages, the subject suit came to be filed.

(3.) THE relevant issue framed in this regard by the trial Court is issue No.6. The detailed discussion/findings/conclusions qua this issue is as per the discussion qua the issue No.5. While dealing with this issue, the trial Court had held that the onus was upon the appellants/plaintiffs to show that demolition which took place was on the property of the appellants/plaintiffs and not on Khasra No. 250. The trial Court has held that the appellants/plaintiffs did not file any demarcation report of any Revenue Officer that the demolition which was carried out, was carried out of the construction on Khasra Nos. 833 and 832/3. In fact, the trial Court noticed that even during the trial of the suit, no application for appointment of Local Commissioner was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for clarifying the fact that demolished portion was a part of plot of the appellants/plaintiffs and not of Khasra No. 250. The trial Court has also referred to the fact that the witness PW1, and who deposed as to the cost of reconstruction of demolished portion, could not tell whether the demolished portion is in Khasra Nos. 832/3 and 833 or in Khasra No. 250. This witness PW1, Mr. P.S. Verma had filed his report Ex.PW1/1 to show the quantum of loss suffered on account of demolition, and as already stated, this witness stated that he did not know whether the demolished portion for which he gave the report fell in Khasra Nos. 832/3 and 833 or in Khasra Nos. 250.