BIMLA CHAUDHARY Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the Union of India, Government of Delhi, Delhi Development authority and Municipal Corporation of Delhi from dispossessing her from a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 2731/1674 measuring 7 Bighas 18 Biswas situated in the revenue estate and abadi area of village Kishangarh, Tehsil mehrauli, New Delhi and also from demolishing the super-structures existing there. That suit was dismissed by the learned Additional district Judge vide order dated 3rd July,2004 and that has led to the filing of the present appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiffs case has been summarized by the learned trial Court in para no. 2 of the impugned judgment as under: "the brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the bhumidar/co-owner and in possession of land bearing khasra no. 2731/1674 measuring 7 Bighas 18 Biswas situated in the revenue estate and abadi area of village Kishangarh, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. According to the plaintiff, the first man who settled in Village Kishangarh was one Sh. Kishan chand and after his name the village was named as Kishan Garh. At the time of settlement and rehabilitation of this village landless labourers and other persons like carpenters, black smith, potters also settled in Village Kishan garh. The village Kishangarh was inhabited in 1940 and predecessors of the plaintiff and other persons have been residing in the village. The name of the owners of the land, forming the part of aforesaid Khasra No. 2731/1674 were recorded as "shamlat Taraf Dulle and Sh. Dulle was recorded as the owner of the land in question. In the year 1946, the predecessor of the plaintiff and proprietors of village Mehrauli settled in Khasra No. 2731/1674 and constructed rooms for their residence. According to the plaintiff, the suit property never vested in the Gram Sabha and it was used for residential and agricultural purposes. According to the plaintiff, the land was joint undivided holding of the proprietors known as Shamlat Taraf Dulle. According to the plaintiff, the aforesaid land was shown in the revenue records till the year 1946-1950 in the possession of the proprietors. Notification u/s 7 of the Act was never issued in respect of the aforesaid land and in the absence of compliance of Section 7 the land could not vest in Gaon Sabha. According to the plaintiff, land situated in village Abadi cannot vest in Gaon Sabha. According to the plaintiff, false entries have been made in the revenue records. Request was made to Halqa Patwari and Kanungo to make correct Khasra Girdawari entries in respect of the above said land but they refused. Request has been made by the plaintiff to pass decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the properties of the plaintiff situated in Khasra No. 2731/1674 measuring 7 Bighas 18 Biswas and from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. " The plaintiff had also pleaded in her plaint that neither the suit land had ever vested in the Gaon Sabha nor the same could vest in it after the promulgation of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954 since no notification under Section 7 thereof was ever issued nor it could even be issued since it was a private land and that false entries had been made in the revenue records showing the suit land to be Gaon Sabha land before 1966 and thereafter of the central Government. The only prayer made in the plaint was for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants- respondents from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit land and from demolishing the construction existing there.

(3.) THE suit was contested by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Municipal corporation of Delhi but main contest was between the plaintiff and the DDA. MCD in its written statment pleaded that the main relief of injunction being against DDA only MCD was not a necessary party to the suit and in fact not even a proper party. The DDA in its written statement, inter-alia, took an objection that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC since suit for permanent injunction was misconceived and was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the land in question was a part of village Kishangarh in mehrauli which was Gaon Sabha land and later on had ceased to be rural area when a notification dated 3rd June, 1966 was issued under Section 507 (A) of the delhi Municipal Corporation Act in respect of the whole of Kishangarh. Consequently the Gaon Sabha stood dissolved and the entire village Kishangarh stood vested in the Central Government which, in turn, had placed it at the disposal of DDA vide notification dated 20. 08. 1974 issued under Section 22 (1) of the Delhi Development Act and that the plaintiffs predecessors-in-interest had at no time any title or interest in the suit land and so rightly they were not shown as the bhumidars or in possession of suit land. Regarding the plaintiffs claim that she was in possession of the suit land the defence of DDA was that the plaintiff or her predecessors were never in possession of the suit land and that in fact she had been attempting to encroach upon the suit land by constructing temporary structures without permission of the Government but her attempts were thwarted by DDA and the structures put up were removed. As per the further case of the DDA, after the plaintiff filed the present suit and got stay order she again tried to grab the suit land under the protection of the stay order passed in her favour in this suit by trying to remove the fencing and boundary wall raised by the DDA before the grant of stay but the DDA had re-constructed the wall.