HOSHIAR SINGH AND ORS. Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment of the first appellate court dated 31.1.2002. This regular second appeal is pending at the admission stage since the year 2002 i.e. for over 12 years. The appellate court by its impugned judgment dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein against the judgment of the trial court dated 8.5.2001, and by which judgment, the trial court had dismissed the suit for injunction of the appellants -plaintiffs with respect to the suit land which was acquired land of the government. Disputes in the present case pertain to 4 bighas and 4 biswas i.e. about 4200 sq. yds. of land situated in Khasra No. 405/98 in village Masoodpur, New Delhi. Admittedly, this land was acquired by Award No. 90/80 -81 (Ex. DW1/1). The case of the appellants -plaintiffs was that they had/have built houses upon the suit land and there are in fact Municipal Nos. C -1 to C -10 on the structures in the suit property, and when the same is taken with the fact that government did not take physical possession, the government did not become the owner in view of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and thus appellants -plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant/Delhi Development Authority from in any manner interfering in their possession. Documents in support of their case have been filed on record and proved by the appellants, being the khasra girdawaris of the year 1981 to 1993 as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/13.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that substantial question of law accordingly arises because government did not become the owner of the lands by having taken physical possession and that possession was not taken on account of structures existing on the same, and consequently, the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit. It is also argued that once the appellants -plaintiffs have constructed on the suit property, and which is thus a built -up area, consequently, the threat of the defendant -Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to take possession including by demolition is illegal.

(3.) AT this stage I would seek to refer to the following apposite observations of the appellate court, and which in my opinion, are sufficient for dismissal of this second appeal.