MANJU SHARMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 CPC against the order dated 3.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant being R.C.A. No.27/2011 titled Manju Sharma vs. DDA.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant herein filed a suit bearing No.244/2009 for declaration and permanent injunction claiming herself to be the owner and in possession of House No.948/20, Gali No.20, Block No.A, Circular Road, Ashram Area, Sonia Vihar, Delhi built up on a plot area of 300 sq. ft. on Khasra No.334, situated at Village Sadat Pur Gujran in abadi of Sonia Vihar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. The plaintiff/appellant had stated that the said house was purchased by her from one Abdul Razak and Chokhrat Khan by way of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc., all dated 28.5.2001 and since then, she has been in continuous possession of the said plot of land and the house built thereon. It has also been alleged that the aforesaid property falls in an unauthorized residential colony known as Sonia Vihar and the name of the aforesaid colony is also appearing in the list of 1071 unauthorized colonies which have been recommended by the Government of Delhi to the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India for the purpose of regularization. It was also alleged that the respondent/DDA had adopted a policy of pick and choose and partially demolished some portion of the suit property somewhere in the year 2006 as a consequence of which, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent/DDA filed its written statement and contested the claim regarding ownership of the plaintiff/appellant in respect of the suit property. It was stated that the suit property was an acquired land as necessary process of acquisition of land had been completed. It was also stated that the structure which was in existence at the plot of the land in question was unauthorized and illegal and the same was also demolished by the officials of the DDA. With regard to the maintainability of the suit, a preliminary objection was also raised on the ground that no statutory notice under Section 53B of the DDA Act was ever served on the respondent/DDA and consequently, for want of notice, the suit was also bad in law.

(3.) IN support of her case, the plaintiff/appellant had examined herself as PW-1 and her husband (Narender Kumar Sharma) as PW-2. The defendant/respondent (DDA) examined one Mohd. Ishaq, Surveyor of the DDA as DW-1. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court dismissed the suit on 28.10.2010 holding that the plaintiff/appellant has not been able to prove her ownership qua the land in question and consequently, she was not entitled to the prayer of injunction as well. So far as the acquisition of land by the DDA is concerned, the plaintiff/appellant had taken the plea that the respondent/DDA had neither acquired the land bearing Khasra No.334 at Village Sadat Pur, Gujran nor any award in this regard was passed. DW-1, Mohd. Ishaq, had stated that notification, which was proved by him by virtue of which 350 acres of land was transferred to the DDA, could not reflect that the Khasra in question was one of the Khasras which were transferred to the DDA; however, the DDA was able to place on record the attested copy of the award No.12/92-93 wherein Khasra No.334 situated at Village Sadat Pur, Gujran had been reflected. In the light of this respective evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court held that the defendant/DDA was able to establish that the suit land was an acquired land.