DCM LIMITED Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present appeal, the judgment and order of 19.09.2012, dismissing CS 1085/1991, has been impugned.

(2.) THE plaintiff ­ which has filed the present appeal (and is hereafter referred to as "DCM" or "the plaintiff" variously), claimed a declaration and decree for permanent injunction in respect of land situated at Baghraoji, Delhi. The DCM contended that some of its other lands were taken-over by the Delhi Improvement Trust as it was required for realignment of drain known as "Daryai Nala" and in exchange it was allotted the suit land. The plaintiff also stated that physical possession of the land allotted and made over to it was given sometime in 1942-1943 and ever since it was in continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment as the owner. The DDA initiated the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, [hereafter referred to as "the 1971 Act"]. The notice under the 1971 Act was issued sometime in 1990 and proceedings were commenced by the DDA, the defendant thereafter. The Estate Officer proceeded with the matter. During the pendency of those proceedings, the DCM filed CS 1085/1991 claiming declaration that it was the owner in possession and seeking a decree of declaration restraining the defendant DDA from dispossessing it. The DDA filed written statement urging various contentions. It also averred that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that notice in terms of Section 53A of the Delhi Development Authority Act had not been issued. The DDA objected to the maintainability of the suit, however, on the ground that it was barred by Section 15 of the Public Premises Act. The DDA filed an application, I.A. No. 11206/1992, in terms of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejection of the suit, on the ground that notice under Section 53B had not been served. It also pleaded that DCM's argument that it was the owner and entitled to a declaration, was not made-out because of Section 15 and further that in the absence of any title document, such a plea was untenable.

(3.) THOUGH DCM's argument was that the suit could not be rejected at the threshold and, therefore, required a trial, was accepted, the Court proceeded to reject the plaint on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 53B. Consequently, the DCM preferred an appeal, i.e. RFA 17/1995 which remained pending on the file of this Court for a considerable period of time. By the judgment of a Division Bench, dated 29.05.2009, that appeal was allowed and the Court held that having regard to the circumstances, what emerged was that DDA was aware of the appellant's claim consequent upon which notice under Section 53B was unnecessary. The Division Bench by its judgment directed the suit to be listed for directions before the learned Single Judge on 15.07.2009. Consequently, the suit was listed on many dates of hearings and by order dated 12.11.2009, it was noticed that the materials and statement recorded by the Estate Officer could be treated as evidence of the parties' respective cases; the suit was listed for framing issues on 29.01.2010. Thereafter, it was again listed on subsequent dates.