MITTAR SAIN JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners who claimed to be sons of late Sh. Raj Kishore Jain state that property bearing Municipal Number 3394-95/XI, 3396/XI and 3397-98/XI, Delhi Gate, New Delhi - 110002 are ancestral properties inherited through their ancestor Bihari Lal. They allege that Bihari Lal who was the owner of the property, on his death was survived by his sons Jamna Dass and Chuhamal. They allege that Choti Devi was the wife of Jamna Dass and Javitri Devi was the wife of Chuhamal. It is stated that Chuhal Mal and Javitri Devi died issue-less.

(2.) Case pleaded is that notwithstanding the properties aforenoted being acquired under 3 awards, being No.784/1298 dated 9.11.1949, 861/1424 dated 27.2.1950 and 1059/1474 dated 16.2.1953 possession was never taken over. Petitioners allege that the acquisition was on behalf of the Delhi Improvement Trust. It is pleaded that the Land Acquisition Collector never took over possession of the acquired properties and hence Delhi Improvement Trust did not come into possession of the same. It is pleaded that with the formation of the Delhi Development Authority in the year 1957, the Delhi Improvement Trust ceased to exist, and all properties and rights and interest of Delhi Improvement Trust vested in the Delhi Development Authority. Further case pleaded is that a Slum and J.J.Wing was formed as a part of the Delhi Development Authority to take charge of the slum areas. The property in question, situated in the walled city of Delhi is a slum area. It is pleaded that with the transfer of the Slum and J.J.Wing of DDA to Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Municipal Corporation through the Slum and J.J.Department came into the picture. It is pleaded that on 30.5.1970 the Slum and J.J.Wing of the MCD adopted a resolution to the effect that the ADM (Land Acquisition) may be requested to take over possession of the properties which were subject matter of the 3 awards passed on 9.11.1949, 27.2.1950 and 16.2.1953 with further direction that persons affected by the act of taking over possession i.e. the occupants should be given alternative allotments.

(3.) The petitioners pitched their case on the plea that having not taken over possession of the properties for years together, it is too late in the day for the Slum and J.J.Wing to take over possession of the subject properties. Thus, prayer made is to declare that the petitioners are lawful owners of the properties and that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Writ of prohibition is sought for to restrain the respondents from interfering with the ownership and peaceful possession of the subject properties in the hands of the petitioners.