MOOL CHAND SHARMA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal in the nature of a regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 28th September, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 175/2003. By the aforesaid judgment and decree the suit filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

(2.) The aforesaid suit was filed by the appellant herein seeking for a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents their agents, their employees and any person acting on their behalf from demolishing the property of the appellant plaintiff at A-47, Shiv Mandir Complex, Village Masoodpur, New Delhi and also restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellant herein in any other manner from the aforesaid property.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal is the Delhi Development Authority whereas Union of India is imp leaded as respondent No. 2 through the Ministry of Urban Development. According to the appellant in village Masoodpur there is a Shiva temple and the same was lying neglected as there was no Brahmin to perform pujas in the temple for which the villagers of Masoodpur requested the appellant plaintiff to come to the village to look after the temple and perform pujas.It is alleged that from 1965 the appellant-plaintiff has been looking after the temple along with another priest namely, Karan Mudgal and they were living there in a room adjacent to the temple. Subsequent thereto Gaon Sabha gave the land to the appellant-plaintiff and the other Pujari and they made their house adjacent to the temple and started living there since long. It was further alleged that 19th January, 2003 a policeman from police Station Vasant Kunj came to the aforesaid temple and informed the appellant- plaintiff that the temple as well as the house of the appellant and Ram Karan are to be demolished on 22nd January, 2002 upon which the appellant made inquiries during the course of which he was informed that the State Government has acquired the land and it is shown that possession of vacant land has been taken over in the year 1986 and therefore demolition order has been issued. Immediately thereafter the aforesaid suit was filed by the appellant praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining demolition and restraining respondents from disturbing peaceful possession of the appellant. The DDA contested the suit by filing written statement. It was stated in the said written statement that the appellant was an encroacher in the land belonging to OOA. It was stated that the suit land falls in Khasra No. 205/2 of village Masoodpur which stands acquired under Award No. 42/86-87, the total land being 3 bighas 3 biswas. It was also stated that physical possession of the land was taken over from LAC/ L & B on 22nd September, 1986 and the said land is now at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority. In that context it was submitted that the appellant has no, right, title or interest in the suit property. It was also contented that the suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that no statutory notice as required under Section 53 (B) of the DDA Act was served on the respondent-defendant.