SACHDEVA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REGD Vs. RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS COLONY REGD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit by the plaintiff educational society for decree for permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendants No.l to 9 from dispossessing the plaintiff society from the suit land measuring 1.20 acres (4900 sq.mtrs.) situated at G-8 Area, Press Colony, Rajouri Garden New Delhi, more particularly shown in colour Red in the rough site plan. Schedule 'A' and or from interfering in the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the suit land and for a decree of mandatory injunction requiring defendants No.10 and 11 to enforce the directions by this Court and to protect the plaintiff's lawful possession and its rights and enjoyment over the suit land, by.I.A. No-2572/95, the plaintiff seek to restrain the defendants in identical terms, by I.A. No-2662/95, the plaintiff seeks to restrain defendants No.l to 9 from obstructing/ interfering in any manner whatsoever the plaintiff in erecting/constructing the boundary wall around this suit plot measuring 1.20 acres (approximately 4900 sq.mtrs.) situated in G-8 Area, Press Colony, Rajouri Garden New Delhi, pending the hearing and disposal of the suit.

(2.) Defendant No.5, by I.A. No.3121/95 under Rule 4 of Order 39 Civil Procedure Code prays for the discharge and setting aside of the orders passed exparte in I.A. No.2572/95 on 23rd February 1995 and I.A. No.2662/95 on 25th March 1995 (both under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code) alternatively praying to vary the stay orders for the maintenance of status quo as it was before the filing of the suit.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff shortly stated is that the plaintiff is an educational society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. That in August 1987, the plaintiff society made an application to D.D.A. for allotment of land for primary/middle school. As per the rules, the Director of Education, Delhi Administration recommended the case of the plaintiff society to D.D.A. (defendant No.10) for allotment of land vide letter dated 7th October 1987. Vide letter dated 27th March 1991, D.D.A. proposed to allot the plot of land measuring two acres (one acre for the school building and the remaining one acre for playfield) on perpetual leasehold basis for running a middle school in Rajouri Garden, G-8 Area, Press Colony, New Delhi on usual terms and conditions; That as D.D.A. did not allot and give possession of the land to the plaintiff society, the plaintiff was obliged to file a civil writ petition being C.W.P. No.l366/92; Vide order dated 12th March 1989, this Court allowed the plaintiff's petition and permitted the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of Rs.9.75 lakhs with D.D.A, and the Court further directed the D.D.A to give possession of the land in question to the plaintiff on plaintiff depositing the said sum. The plaintiff on 23rd April 1993 vide challan No.2044, deposited the said sum with D.D.A; That as D.D.A. failed to allot and give possession of the land to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was required to file second contempt petition being C.C.P. No.433/94 on 9th November 1994; that the said contempt petition is pending disposal before the Court. That ultimately, the D.D.A. has now given the land measuring 1.20 acres approximately at Rajouri Garden, G-8 Area, to the plaintiff on 13th March 1995 followed by its confirmation letter dated 14th March 1995; that the plaintiff society, thereafter on 19th March 1995, commenced construction of the boundary wall around the said plot measuring 1.20 acres and also pitched a small tent at the site for site office to supervise the construction of the boundary wall. That defendants No. 1 to 9 obstructed the plaintiff in the construction of the boundary wall and created all sorts of hurdles. That the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit land admeasuring 1.20 acres; that defendants No.l to 9 have been taking law into their hands and that defendant No.11 has been conniving with defendants No.l to 9 with the result the plaintiff has not been able to construct the boundary wall around the suit land though he is the lawful owner and in possession thereof as well as for the relief aforestated described more carefully in the prayer clause of the plaint.