BABA BALBIR SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHOURITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 11. 10. 2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession and injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The suit property comprises of 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas of land (1,100 sq. yards) out of Khasra Nos. 1089/1032/445 and 444 and 1031/445 min/part situated in Village Khirki Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, also known as Plot no. 163, Khirki Extension Colony, Kariappa Marg, New Delhi. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that the suit property was originally owned by the original plaintiff Mrs. Gurjit Taneja and that during the pendency of the suit the present appellant was assigned and transferred rights in the suit property by Mrs. Gurjit Taneja by virtue of an agreement to sell and GPA dated 9. 8. 2005. The present appellant was therefore in terms of an application filed under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC substituted as the plaintiff in place of the original plaintiff Mrs. Gurjit Taneja. Mrs. Gurjit Taneja is said to have purchased the suit property from the owner Sh. J. C. Marwah and from whom the original plaintiff Mrs. Gurjit Taneja had purchased the suit land under an Agreement to Sell dated 6. 4. 1992. Also it is required to be noted that the suit as originally filed was a suit for injunction inasmuch as the appellant/plaintiff pleaded to be in possession of the suit property, however, during pendency of the suit the appellant/plaintiff alleges that he was dispossessed from the suit property by the respondent/defendant/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in January 2007 and consequently, the suit was amended from a suit for permanent injunction against dispossession to claiming the relief of possession of the suit property.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff claims that he and earlier Mrs. Gurjit Taneja was owner of the suit property and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property which has been illegally taken by the respondent/defendant.

(3.) Respondent/Defendant filed its written statement and pleaded that the land in question was acquired with other land in terms of the Award No. 20/1987-88. Possession of the suit land was taken under possession proceedings on 22/2 12. 1987. The suit land along with other lands were thereafter transferred to the respondent/defendant under a package deal by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. It was therefore pleaded that the suit be dismissed inasmuch as the suit land is an acquired land and of which possession was also taken by the respondent/defendant in possession proceedings as per Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the respondent/defendant is hence the owner in possession of the suit land.