GIRDHARI LAL CHADHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the property comprised in field No. 116, measuring 3 bighas and 2 biswas situate in the revenue estate of village Naraina, Delhi, and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession thereof.

(2.) The allegations made in the plaint are these. The land in field No. 116, measuring 3 bighas and 2 biswas, situate in the revenue estate of village Naraina (for short called the property) was owned by one Bharta, son of Niadar, resident of village Naraina who sold it in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and husband of plaintiff No. 2, vide registered deed of sale dated January 4, 1958 and put the plaintiffs in actual physical possession thereof. The plaintiffs have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the prop erty. In the month of February 1981, some employees of the Delhi Development Authority (for short called DDA), defendant No. 4 came to the site and asked the Chowkidai of the plaintiffs and others to vacate and hand over possession of the property to the DDA. On enquiry, it was discovered that the Lt. Governor of Delhi, defendant No, 2 had issued a Notification dated September 3, 1957, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 intimating his intention to acquire the property and the purpose of acquisition was mentioned as "Execution of Interim General Plan'. Subsequently, the declaration dated December 24, 1962, under Section 6 of the said Act was issued mentioning the same very purpose and award No. 1713 was made and published on October 30, 1963. According to the allegations made in the plaint, the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal, ineffective and void ab initio on the ground that the Interim General Plan came to an end and the public purpose for which the declaration was issued was no longer inexistence as the Master Plan of Delhi came into force on September 1, 1962. The basis of the suit is that the public purpose mentioned in the declaration under Section 6 was non-existent rendering the whole acquisition proceedings futile. Certain owners of the adjoining land challenged the declaration under Section 6 and the award by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court and this Court quashed the proceedings in those cases and the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the defendants were also dismissed. The plaintiffs were advised to approach the Court and they filed C.W.P. No. 444-D of 1981 in March, 1981 and obtained interim relief at the stage of show cause notice of restraining the defendants from taking possession. After the defendants had shown cause, this Court declined to admit the writ petition on October 14, 1981 on the ground that the petition is highly belated and so the Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The plaintiff then filed the present suit on October 19, 1981 claiming the aforesaid relief.

(3.) The suit along with the application for interim relief including ex parte relief came up for admission before the Court on October 20, 1981 when summons of the suit were ordered to be issued to the defendants in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post for November 3, 1981 and still then the respondents\defendants were restrained from taking possession of the property in dispute.