BARFO DEVI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendant alleging therein that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession and occupation of the land comprised in Khasra No. 843/5 measuring 2 bighas situated in Village Mahipal Pur. The case, as set up by the plaintiff, is that the plaintiff was given lease of the land by Gaon Sabha at Village mahipalpur for a period of 5 years from 26. 7. 1977 to 28. 7. 1981. This lease was further extended for a term of 5 years on 1. 4. 1981 to 1. 4. 86. Plaintiff claimed that although the lease was not extended after that, the plaintiff remained in possession even thereafter. She, therefore, continued to be a lessee of Gaon sabha land and became an Aasami of Gaon Sabha and the property was in peaceful possession and occupation of her since then.

(2.) IT is admitted in the plaint that proceedings under Section 86a of delhi Land Reforms Act were initiated against the plaintiff's son Dharam Singh since he was in unauthorized occupation of Khasra No. 843/5 and the ejectment order was passed against Dharam Singh by Revenue Assistant on 6th October 1997. This order of the Revenue Assistant was challenged by a revision petition preferred before the Finance Commissioner and the Finance Commissioner vide order dated 27th March 1998 remanded back the case again to Revenue Assistant. The matter was again proceeded with before the Revenue Assistant and the Revenue assistant passed an order under Section 86a of Delhi Land Reforms Act on 11th april 2007. The plaintiff's son again challenged this order before the Finance commissioner by a revision petition on 23rd April 2007. It is stated by the plaintiff that the revision petition was pending on the date of filing the instant suit. However, this contention of the plaintiff is factually incorrect. The suit was filed before this Court on 25th August 2007, thereafter defects were removed and it was refiled on 27th August 2007. However, the date on the suit was deliberately put as 24th August 2007 because the revision petition of the plaintiff's son was dismissed by the Finance Commissioner on 24th August 2007. After dismissal of the revision petition, the plaintiff rushed with this suit without disclosing to the Court that the revision petition was dismissed. The plaintiff in the replication admitted that the revision petition was dismissed on 24th August 2007 and a writ petition against the order of financial Commissioner was pending. It is apparent that the plaintiff tried to play smart with the Court and did not disclose that the revision petition was dismissed and obtained an injunction order. Her son thereafter preferred a writ petition before this Court against the order of Finance Commissioner. The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone that the plaintiff did not deliberately disclose to the Court the material facts and pre-dated the suit. The plaintiff was very well aware on 25th August 2007 when she filed the instant suit that the revision petition has been dismissed. The plaintiff was very well aware of the fact when the matter was taken up by the court on 29th August 2007.

(3.) THE Revenue Assistant in his order dated 11. 04. 2007 categorically held that the property was in illegal possession and belonged to Gaon Sabha. No document or revenue record was submitted by claimant to substantiate his claim over the suit land. The respondent (plaintiff's son) was liable to be ejected from the land with immediate effect.