VISHAL BUILDERS PVT LTD Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Suit. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is as under: The plaintiff is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of buildings. On 28.11.1972 lot No.95, District Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was put to auction by defendant No. 1 (DDA) and the plaintiff offered a premium of Rs.16,6,000/- for the suit property measuring 743.22 sq. mts. The plaintiff was declared the successful bidder. The bid was accepted by defendant No.1 and the possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff on 5.3.1973. A building thereon was constructed. The plaintiff is in continuous peaceful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff is not in possession of the conditions of auction. The plaintiff believes that the conditions were the same as was for a property in respect of which another suit being Suit No. 409/1973, M/s. Vishal Builders (P) Ltd. v. DDA was filed. In the suit one of the questions for determination was what the nature of the land for which the bids were invited by auction was and if it was Nazul land whether DDA had right to sell. It was held by the High Court that the auction by the DDA was illegal as DDA could not have sold the property till the rules had not been framed under Section 22 of the The Delhi Development Act, 1957 (in short 'DD Act') and the Delhi Development Authority had not obtained any directions from the Central Government. This decision was rendered on 23.3.1977. The appeal preferred over the judgment of the Single Judge (RFA (OS) No. 15/77) was dismissed. All lands placed at the disposal of the DDA by the Central Government throughout the Union Territory of Delhi were held to be Nazul lands placed at its disposal under Section 22 of the DD Act. Pursuant to the judgment and decree in Suit No. 409/73, the Central Government framed Rules in 1981. The plaintiff paid the bid money in 1973. Since the DDA was incompetent to dispose of the plot, auction held by the DDA in which the plaintiff obtained the possession of the suit property was null and void. Till date no lease deed has been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Thus, the possession of the plaintiff qua defendant No. 1 is adverse. The period of limitation prescribed for perfecting title by adverse possession against the State is 30 years as per Article 111 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff has, thus, perfected his title by adverse possession. The possession of the plaintiff is open and hostile qua the Union of India as well as of the DDA. The plaintiff received demand notice dated 29.11.2001 from defendant No. 2, acting on behalf of defendant No. 1, demanding a sum of Rs. 10,35,090/- as amount outstanding towards arrears of ground rent upto 14.1.2002 with 10% interest thereon from the due date of appointment till actual date of payment. The plaintiff has been receiving such notices over the years in the past but has never paid the ground rent because there was no valid contract between the parties to pay ground rent. As such the plaintiff being the bonafide purchaser having purchased the land for consideration and having been delivered possession by defendant No. 1 on5.3.1973 is holding the land as owner without any conditions having been attached thereto by defendant No. I, within the knowledge of Union of India (defendant No. 3). The plaintiff is, therefore, in possession of free hold plot as a legal consequence of normal sale purchase. Since no lease deed was ever executed there was no liability on the part of the plaintiff to pay any ground rent or arrears thereof. The notice dated 29.11.2001 threatening to recover the ground rent under Punjab Land Revenue Act is illegal and is an attempt to re-enter the suit property. The plaintiff is being threatened of dispossession by defendant No. 4, which is an agency of defendant No. 1, for recovering the dues. The plaintiff accordingly claims a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, a decree of declaration that the suit property was placed at the hands of defendant No. 1 under Section 22 of the DD Act as Nazul land, a decree of declaration that the defendants were legally incompetent to hold auction of the suit property on 28.11.1972, a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is in adverse possession ever since 5.3.1973, a decree of declaration that since no ground rent was paid despite bills having been raised by the defendants the possession is open and hostile, a decree of declaration that the plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser for consideration free of all encumbrances, a decree of declaration that the plaintiff has perfected his title on 4.3.2003, a decree for declaration that the plaintiff is not liable to pay any ground rent and a decree of declaration that defendant No. 1 is not competent to re-enter the suit property.

(2.) The plaintiff has also filed an interim application seeking interim reliefs. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has been heard in detail about the maintainability of plaintiff s suit and plaintiff s claim. Analysis of the claim of the plaintif

(3.) The claim of the plaintiff, is self-contradictory which is clear from the prayer clauses themselves. The plaintiff has not placed on the record the terms of the auction, following which he came'into possession but it is clear that the auction was only of lease-hold right as the plaintiff himself saysthat every year the plaintiff has been receiving the demand for ground rent. On the one hand, the plaintiff claims that he is bonafide purchaser and on the other hand he claims that he is in adverse possession. If he is a bonafide purchase of the lease-hold title overthe suit property his status of a tenant/lessee in respect of the suit.property is admitted. He .having admitted his position of a lessee cannot dispute the title of the DDA and the Union. of India who- are nothing other than the agents and the principal. Section 116 of the Evidence Act bars a tenant from denying the title of the landlord. Similarly, no person who comes into possession of an immovable property on the basis of licence or permission of the person in possession thereof cannot be-permitted to deny that such person had a title to .such property when such licence was given. Section 116 is reproduced below: