RAWAT MAL JAIN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of three appeals being FAO(OS)Nos.190,191 and 192 of 1994 arising out of .the order dated July 19,1994 of the learned single Judge in I.A.No-262/93 in Suit No-105 of 1993 with I.As-266,263,264, 265, 261, 267,284 and 690 of 1993 in Suits No-100,101, 102, 103, 104,106,109 and 241 of 1993 respectively. Since the same question arises in the three appeals, it will be sufficient if the facts of one case are stated for the purpose of disposal of these appeals. For this purpose we will give facts of Suit No. 100 of 1993, which are as under:

(2.) A suit for the grant of permanent injunction was filed by the appellants against Delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 1, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No.2 and the Union of India, respondent No.3. It is claimed in the plaint that the appellant No.l Rawat Mal Jain, purchased 1000 sqyards of land situated in Khasra No.241 (Min 1-00) Ladha Sarai, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, New Delhi on March 30,1992 by means of two separate registered sale deeds from the vendors named therein. Subsequently appellant No.l is said to have entered into an agreement to sell dated December 14, 1992 with Smt.Prem Grover, appellant No.2 and Smt.Santosh Jindal,appellant No.3 in respect of 500 sq.yards out of the aforesaid land. The possession of the land was allegedly handed over to the appellants 2 and 3 who are said to have paid full consideration under the agreement to sell to appellant No.l. Over the land,subject matter of the agreement to sell,M/s.Marble Arts, appellant No.4 is carrying on marble business. Appellant No.1 is also carrying on business of Marble as Sole Proprietor in the name and style of M/s.Jai Hind Granite Traders on the remaining land in question. According to the appellants, on December 30,1992 the respondents, their employees and agents, accompanied by police force and demolition squad alongwith bull dozers demolished shops contiguous to the land in question. The respondents allegedly extended threats to the appellants for similar action against them. The appellants claim that the respondents have no right or interest in the said land nor have they any authority to interfere with the possession of the appellants over the same nor have they any right, authority or justification to demolish temporary make shift structure (khoka) erected thereon. The appellants apprehending action against them, filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing them from the suit land and from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same and also for restraining the respondents from carrying out the acts of demolition or destruction of the property. Alongwith the suit the appellants filed an application for grant of an ex parte interim order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants from the land in question and from demolishing the structure with a further prayer for grant of direction not to carry out any destruction of marble slabs and other stones lying thereon. The learned single Judge on January 20,1993 granted an ad interim order of status quo regarding the suit land. It was, however, clarified that this order would not prevent the DDA from taking proceedings under Sections 12 and 29 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for Short "DD Act")

(3.) Thereafter respondents 1 and 2 filed their respective written statments. The stand of the DDA in its written statement needs to be noticed, which is to the following effect: