DCM LIMITED Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, DCM Limited, has instituted this Regular First Appeal against a decision of a Single Judge of this Court whereby an application filed by the respondent/defendant, Delhi Development Authority (DDA), under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed and consequently, the plaint in suit No. 1085 of 1991 filed by the appellant stood rejected.

(2.) THE appellant had instituted Suit No. 1085 of 1991 against the DDA praying for a declaration and injunction in respect of land situated in Baghraoji, Delhi. In that suit, the appellant contended that some other land owned by it was taken over by the Delhi Improvement Trust since it was required for re -alignment of a drain known as daryai nala, and the appellant was allotted the suit land in exchange. Actual physical possession of that land was also stated to have been handed over to the appellant on two dates in 1942 and 1943. It was contended that consequently, ever since 1943, the appellant has been in continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit land, as its owner. The appellant further alleged that despite this, ever since Ist September, 1955, the appellants possession was sought to be disturbed, first by the Delhi Improvement Trust and thereafter by its successor, the DDA on the specious ground that the appellant was in unauthorized possession of the suit land and, therefore, it was liable to eviction and damages. In its suit, the appellant impugned the validity of the proceedings initiated by the DDA against it under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (Public Premises Act) on the allegation that the said proceedings are without jurisdiction since it is in occupation of the suit premises as the owner thereof, and that in the alternative, it has become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession.

(3.) ALONG with its suit, the appellant had also moved an interim application praying for stay of eviction proceedings pending before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act. Stay of dispossession was also sought. On 24th July, 1991, the Single Judge directed that possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed until further orders. This interim order was made absolute on 23rd March, 1992. It was only thereafter that the respondent filed its written statement.