SATISH KHOSLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed by plaintiff who lost his battle right up to the supreme Court and again re-agitated the issue in respect to the same subject matter. Plaintiff Satish Khosla had resisted taking of possession of land illegally occupied by him on which he did massive construction in the name of shanti Sports Club and the litigation continued for more than 20 years. Ultimately, the Supreme Court vide its decision in Shanti Sports Club and another vs. Union of India and others 2009 (11) Scale 731 gives following directions:

(2.) THE plaintiff in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court had filed an undertaking and affidavit before the Supreme Court that plaintiff shall handover possession of the land to DDA by 30th November 2009. However, despite tendering this undertaking plaintiff did not handover the land to DDA and DDA had to take over possession with the help of police force. The plaintiff had made another attempt to continue its hold over the land by filing writ petition being WP (C) No. 10765/ 2009. This writ petition was also dismissed on 13th november, 2009 by this Court holding that it was without merits. The Court observed that the writ petition was an abuse of process of law in view of the fact that petitioner had already given an undertaking to the Supreme Court that they would vacate the land without claiming any compensation qua structure. After dismissal of the writ petition, plaintiff has now preferred the present suit with a novel plea that 7 bighas of land situated in Khasra No. 38 Min was not the subject matter of acquisition and plaintiff was Bhumidar or successor in interest in respect of land falling in Khasra No. 38 Min and the officials of defendants were threatening to take forcible possession on the ground that the said land vested in government.

(3.) PLAINTIFF has failed to place on record any document showing that the plaintiff was Bhumidar of any portion of land under any of the Khasras. The khasra Girdavaries placed on record by plaintiff pertain to year 1982-83 to 1986-87. These Khasra Girdavaries show name of one Atma Ram but do not contain the name of plaintiff as tenure holder. Moreover, Khasra Godavari is not a document of Bhumidari. The Bhumidari rights are enforceable under Delhi Land reforms Act. At no stage, plaintiff had filed any proceeding under Delhi Land reforms Act to claim that he was a Bhumidar of the land in question. After dismissal of the plaintiff's writ petition by this Court and plaintiff having lost his claim to the land illegally occupied right upto Supreme Court, this novel idea struck plaintiff of claiming to be a Bhumidhar in respect of one Khasra i. e. 38 Min. Plaintiff nowhere in previous proceedings had raised the issue in respect of khasra No. 38 Min and had not stated that 38 Min was not a part of the acquired land.