DAYANAND CHANDILA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal u/Section 100, Civil Procedure Code . brings in challenge the judgment and order dated 30.8.1995 passed by the Add). District Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 71/93 confirming the decree of dismissal of the appellant's suit for permanent injunction as rendered by the Trial Court.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to this appeal may be shortly stated are that the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for permanent injunction restraining it from demolishing the appellant's house bearing No. WZ-40/1, situated at Village Khayala, New Delhi. The appellant set up the plea that in the year of 1971-72, he had constructed the said house and since then he has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession thereof. That on 23.1.1985, the respondent, through its employees, attempted to demolish the said house. The defence of the respondent was three-fold. Firstly, it was contended that the land in question comprising of Khasra No. 48/27 belonged to Gaon Sabha of Village Khyala and by the notification dated 20.8.1974 issued by the Central Government u/Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act (for short the Act), the lands including the land comprising of Khasra No. 48/27, which had vested in the Central Government on the urbanisation of the Village Khyala, were placed at the disposal of the respondent for the purpose of development and maintenance of the said lands and as such the appellant had no right, title or interest in the said land. The second defence was that the suit was bad for want of notice u/Section53B of the Act read with Section 80, CPC. The third defence was that the appellant had no cause of action as the respondent had not threatened to demolish the structure raised on the said land.

(3.) After recording evidence the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the land comprising of Khasra No. 48/27 belonged to the Gaon Sabha and the same had been placed at the disposal of the respondent vide notification dated 22.8.1974 (Ex. DWI/2) and, the appellant had no right, title or interest in the said land. It was also held that the appellant being in unlawful possession of one Bigha of the said Khasra number is a trespasser and, therefore, he cannot seek the helping hand of the Court for protecting his unlawful possession. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant carried the matter in appeal. The Additional District Judge, on the reappreciation of evidence confirmed the findings of the trial Judge.