RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject suit has been filed by three plaintiffs claiming the following reliefs:-

(2.) THE suit essentially claims ownership rights in three plots bearing nos.40, 41 and 42, each measuring 401.34 sq.yds. situated in Kalindi Colony, New Delhi. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased these plots from or through the original allottees of the plot and who with respect to the plot nos.40 to 42 were Sh.Suraj Bahadur Gupta, Smt. Raj Kumar and Smt. Mohini Devi respectively. With the original allottees, the defendant no.3/Cooperative Society namely M/s. Swatantra Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. had entered into the sale deeds. The sale deeds are dated 7th October, 1965 and 13th October, 1965. The plaintiffs in different paragraphs of the plaint essentially set out the following averments for claiming the reliefs:

(3.) THE plaintiffs evidence is being recorded and at which stage the defendant no.3 filed IA No.920/2012 for dismissing the suit on the basis of judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in RSA No.243/2006 titled as D.V.Singh vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and an SLP against which was said to be dismissed by the Supreme Court. It is alleged by the defendant no.3 in IA No.920/2012 that the facts of the present case are fully covered by the said judgment dated 18.3.2011 in RSA No.243/2006 and therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in D.V.Singh's (supra) case it is essentially canvassed that once the plots of the plaintiffs are not part of the lay out plan and are only vacant spaces, to such plots plaintiffs cannot have ownership rights. This is argued to be more so because Clause 7 of the sale deeds entered into between the defendant no.3/Cooperative Society and the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs specifically states and provides that in case the plots of the plaintiffs/their predecessors-in-interest are not approved and hence do not fall within the lay out plan of Kalindi Colony as approved by the MCD, then, the plaintiffs would have no rights to such plots. It is also argued that actually the judgment in the case of D.V.Singh's (supra) case relies upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4246/2000 decided on 27.7.2000 and which judgment with respect to similarly situated plots as claimed by the plaintiffs, held that with respect to those plots which do not fall within a sanctioned lay out plan under Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, no developmental activities or constructions on such plots are permissible inasmuch as such activities would be illegal as the plots cannot be owned by such persons.