VIVEKANAND PRATISHTHAN PARISHAD Vs. REHMAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 8 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners and respondent No. 9.Along with the said suit the said plaintiffs filed an application seeking interiminjunction against the present petitioners as well as DDA under Order 39Rules 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was thatthey were tenants in respect of their respective portion for the last more than9 years under the present petitioner i.e. defendant No. 2 before the TrialCourt. It was further alleged that at the time of letting out the premises,the defendant No 2 assured them that he was owner and landlord of theproperty However during the course of the trial, the defendant No. 2 tookthe plea that he was neiother the owner of the suit preimises nor let out thesame to the plaintiffs DDA was impleded as defendant No. 1. In its written statement DDA took the plea that Khasra Nos 37/3,4,7, 8 and 14 ofVillage Khureji Khas had been acquired vide award Nos. 22/70-71 and thepossession of the same had already been taken over by the DDA. Whilecontesting the application it was further pleaded by the DDA that plaintiffshave unauthorisediy put up Khokhas on the acquired land which were liableto be removed. The Trial Court aftef going through the record found noprima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and hence dismissed the application. According to the Court below the land had been acquired by the government and it being government property, therefore, no person has a right toconstruct any khokhas or raise structures thereon. Since the plaintiffs wereunauthorised occupants of the... land, hence no case is made out to grantinterim injunction.

(2.) Against the order oftha k^triied Sub Judge, the plaintiffs tiled anappeal which was listed before Shri S.N. iJhingra, Additional District Judge.Delhi. The learned Add]. District Judge not only allowed the appealbut made certain observations against which the present petition has beenpreferred.

(3.) Notice of this revision petition was duly served on respondents 1, 4to 8. So far as respondent No. 2 and 3 are concerned, the petitioner gavethem up from the arrey of respondents. Since the served respondents did notappear, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. The respondent No. 9DDA filed the reply and supported the case of the petitioner. I have givenmy thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the petitioner whichare; supported by the respondent-DDA. Admittedly, the khokhas of respon-dents 1,4 to 8 are built on Khasra No. 33/7/4/8/14 of Village Khurejee Khasthe land of these khasras measuring five acres belong io DDA as it wasacquired by the Delhi Administration through award No. 22/70-71 leaving noright, title or interest in any party. Prior to these khasras being acquired thepetitioner has been in occupation of this land. But after it was acquired thepetitioner surrendered the possession to DDA. Since the petitioner is asociety dealing with charitable purpose, it therefore applied to the DDA forallotment of land for constructing a hospital as well as essential staff quarters.The Lt. Governor after considering the application of the petitioner allottedtwo acres of developed land to the petitioner against a consideration ofRs. 1.97 lakhs. The rest of the three acres of land remained with the DDA.fhe respondents 1 to 8 had squattered overthis land which belongs to DDA.The DDA wanted to remove these encroachera for the purpose of wideningof the main Patparganj road in village Khureji Khas. Further the formalpossession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on 27th February,MW but the regular possession could not be handed over as portion of theland measuring about 300 square metres was under unauthorised encroach-ments. The remaining land of three acres meant for community facilities wasalso under encroachment.