NATHU RAM Vs. D.D.A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs - Mr. Surat Singh and his son - Mr. Nathu Ram/Appellant herein (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), have filed a suit for perpetual injunction before the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, being Suit No.390/2006 titled Sh. Surat Singh and Anr. v. DDA. The case of the Plaintiffs was that they have been in possession as owners of 2,500 sq. yds. of land forming part of Khasra No. 48/7 in the revenue estate of Humayunpur, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property"), since the time of their forefathers. The Plaintiffs claim to have constructed a house bearing no. 20-B, Krishan Nagar, on a piece of land measuring 800 sq. yds. in the said Khasra. The suit property, as per the site plan exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 consists of nine rooms, an open courtyard and a tin shed. As per the site plan, there is only one property i.e., B-20, located on the western side of the suit property. On the northern and eastern sides, there are roads and the southern side has a service lane. The relevant paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint read as under:

(2.) The suit was filed against the Defendants on the ground that on 8/5/1984, the Respondent/Defendant-DDA (hereinafter "DDA") had threatened to demolish the construction of the house and asked the Plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the same to DDA. Notably, in the plaint itself, the Plaintiffs take the position that the area where the house B-20 is located, is not acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore the DDA does not have any right to demolish the construction over the suit property. The prayer in the plaint reads as under:

(3.) The case of DDA in its written statement was that the Plaintiffs were illegally occupying a horticulture park, falling in Khasra No. 48/5 and not in Khasra No. 48/7, in the revenue estate of Village Humayunpur. The same had already been acquired by the Union of India vide Award No. 1170/61 notified on 3/11/1961 and was placed at the disposal of DDA. Accordingly, DDA alleged that the Plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in the suit property and the intention of the Plaintiffs was only to grab DDA's land by unauthorizedly constructing their house on the same. DDA further contended that the Plaintiffs could not have challenged the said acquisition by way of a civil suit as the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter "Land Acquisition Act").