HAR BHAGWAN BATRA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated January 14,1993, Civil Revision No.651/91 was disposed of. Review Application was filed for modifying the aforesaid order. The contents of the order show that the parties were required to maintain the status quo with regard to the plot in dispute and the guards of the Delhi Development Authority were allowed to continue to be present at the spot for safeguarding the plot so that no encroachment over that plot takes place during the pendency of the suit in the Trial Court and even the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the lower Court was permitted to have his own guard for protecting the said plot from encroachers. The plea taken in the review application is that this order was beyond the scope of the civil revision and has the effect of dispossessing the plaintiff- petitioner from the suit property and also has the effect of modifying the order of interim relief granted in favour of the plain tiff by the lower Court which had become final as the appeal filed against that order had been dismissed. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties in respect of this review application, it is necessary to refer to the facts in some details.

(2.) The petitioner had brought a civil suit seeking only a relief of permanent injunction restraining the Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from dispossessing the plaintiff from plots bearing No. 15-17, 18-21, 24-30 situated in Guru Ramdas Colony, Khureji Khas, Shahdara. It was averred in the plaint that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the said property alongwith Smt. Shama Bai. Smt. Shama Bai had died and Smt. Krishna Kumari-defendant No. 2, being the legal representative, was impleaded as a proforma defendant. It was averred that this property was purchased fora sale consideration of Rs. 600.00 as per sale deed dated December 9, 1955, from the previous owner and after purchasing the plot it was developed and development charges were also deposited with the Delhi Development Autrity to the tune of Rs. 3,150.00 on September 30, 1978. It was further pleaded that Guru Ramdas Colony has been since regularised by the Delhi Administration and as the plaintiff-petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the said property, the Delhi Development Authority as well as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the said property. It was averred that some of the officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had tried to encroach upon the property asserting that Delhi Development Authority has transferred that property in their favour but they were not allowed to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the relief of permanent injunction was sought.

(3.) A written statement had been filed by the Delhi Development Authority in which it was pleaded by the Delhi Development Authority that the property in question belongs to the Government and that the property was part of the Khasra No-53/6 of Village Khureji Khas which has been acquired vide award No-22/70-71 and the possession of the same had been taken on October 28,1971 and since then it was placed at the management and disposal of the Delhi Development Authority under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act. However, in para 3 it was stated that the plaintiff and Smt.Krishna Kumari had deposited the development charges in respect of the aforesaid plots. In para 4 of the written statement it was averred that the land belongs to the Delhi Development Authority and the construction of the boundary wall etc. on the land in dispute is illegal and unauthorised and the said encroachment is liable to be removed. It was also pleaded that the Delhi Development Authority has the authority and right to remove the unauthorised encroachment and no notice was required to be given to the plaintiff who was mere trespasser on the land in dispute. In para 8 it was averred by the Delhi Development Authority that the title and possession of the land was with the Delhi Development Authority. A Local Commissioner was also appointed by the lower Court in order to, prima facie, determine as to whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the property in question. The report of the Local Commissioner was in favour of the plaintiff and thus, the lower Court had granted interim injunction till the disposal of the suit restraining the Delhi Development Authority from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said property. The Delhi Development Authority had filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed.