DDA Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree of 30th May, 1991 whereby the learned Single Judge has decreed the suit in favour of respondent (plaintiff) for i) recovery of Rs.20,000/ - (Rs.5,000/ - towards damages on account of personal injury and Rs.15,000/ - towards damages for unlawful demolition order), ii) for recovery of the amount towards loss of income at the rate of Rs.244.37 per month with effect from 7 th December, 1969 till the date of decree and iii) with the direction that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest on the decretal amount at the rate of six per cent per annum. It was further decreed that the appellant (defendant) shall restore forthwith to the respondent (plaintiff) a portion of the leased land in khasra No. 257/227 (Bela Estate, Bela Road, Delhi).

(2.) THE case of the appellants is that Bela Revenue Estate in Delhi is Nazul land owned by the Union of India. In or about 1937, this estate was placed at the disposal of the erstwhile, Delhi Improvement Trust (DIT) for the purpose of development. DIT was succeeded by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) after enactment of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. In the said Revenue Estate, there was a plot of land measuring 14 bighas 10 biswas in khasra No.35/2. A lease was executed in favour of one Shri Amba Prasad in respect of this plot of land for 20 years, i.e. from 1st April, 1929 to 31st March, 1949. These rights were sold by the said lessee to one Shri Tara Chand in 1934 and then successively to one Shri Bela Prashad who further sold his leasehold rights albeit only in one part thereof, that is, in respect of a portion comprising one bigha 10 biswas in khasra No.257/227 out of the aforesaid larger plot of land to one Shri Jyoti Prashad through a deed registered on 4th March, 1941. Subsequent to the expiry of the 20 years lease on 31st March, 1949, the DIT discovered that the aforesaid land sublet to one Shri Jyoti Prashad was actually in the occupation of M/s. Wire Netting Stores, that is, respondent No.3 in this appeal. DIT permitted the continued user of the land by the occupant/respondent No.3 on the basis of oral agreement, subject to certain conditions. Admittedly, no regular agreement for grant of "lease for period of thirty years and renewable thereafter" had been executed and DIT was not agreeable to any such long term lease. Upon DDA stepping into the shoes of the DIT, the said area was demarcated in the Master Plan as a green zone i.e. for recreation and for public and private open spaces. In order to bring the land use in conformity with the Master Plan, DDA thought it necessary to evict all lessees from the Nazul land in Bela Revenue Estate. Accordingly, vide Resolution dated 20 th September, 1963, DDA directed that all such leases be terminated for good and the lessees be evicted from the land. As a corollary, a notice dated 12th April, 1963 was sent to respondent no. 3 which reads as under: -

(3.) IN reply to these contentions, counsel for the respondents reiterated the submissions made in their reply -affidavit. He further argued that the ouster of respondents, who were lawful occupants of the entire land i.e. 1523 sq. yds., from the premises was mala fide and for ulterior purposes; that the removal of the occupants from area other than 1078 sq. yds. (of the 1523 sq. yds.) was illegal, since the entire land had earlier been leased to the respondents.