Delhi District Court
Gurjit Singh vs Dda on 3 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA PANDEY, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ
(WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No.607133/2016
CNR no.DLWT03-000006-1997
Shri Gurjit Singh, Deceased through LRs
a. Balbir Singh-son
b. Pritam Kaur-widow
c. Baljit Kaur
All R/o 161, Block-A-2, Bhagat colony,
Burari, Sant Nagar,
Delhi. ...Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman,
Shri Vikas Sadan?Vikas Miner,
New Delhi.
2. Shri Anil Kumar Jain
S/o Late Shri Mahabir Parshad
R/o House No.61, Gali Khajanchi,
Chandini Chowk,
Delhi-110094 ...Defendants
Date of Institution : 14.07.1983
Date of final arguments : 24.12.2024
Date of decision : 22.02.2025
Decision : DISMISSED
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for mandatory
and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the
defendants.
PLAINT
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 1 /37
1. In brief it is the case of the plaintiff as per plaint that he is
a tenant and thus in lawful possession of the shop no. 2 (between
H.P and Caltex Petrol Pump) known as M/s Dashnmesh
Automobiles situated in Khasra no. 403/90/1 at Azadpur, Delhi
at a monthly rent of Rs. 34/- for the last about 20 years since
1955 and defendant no. 3 is the landlord of the same. The
defendant no.3 has been declared Bhumidar of the said land
including the shop in dispute by the court of Shri D.R.Nafri.
Additional Collector, Delhi vide its orders dated 28.07.1988
alongwith the brother of the defenant no.3 Shri Parveen Kumar
Jain. Earlier the D.D.A had filed a false complaint against the
plaintiff which was registered as Case no. 72/3 with respect to
the said shop of the plaintiff titled as D.D.A. (through its
Secretary,) Delhi versus Gurjeet Singh son of Shri Wadhawa
Singh and which was heard and decided by the Court of Shri
P.D. Jarwal, M.M.Delhi vide which the Hon’ble Court has
pleased to acquit the plaintiff of the charge falsely levelled by
D.D.A. The defendant no.2 had been demanding increase in rent
on the false af plea but as the demand of the defendant no.2 was
illegal, unwarranted and uncalled for, the plaintiff refused to
increase the rent of the shop under his tenancy. The enraged on
the refusal of the plaintiff to increase the rent, the defendant no.2
to get the premises vacated through the back door by getting the
same demolished in conspiracy with the officials of the
defendants no.1 and 3 and in pursuance of the said evil designs
of defendant no.2, the defendant no.2 brought government
officials accompanied by the enforcement staff to get the
premises demolished on 11.07.1983 and as the plaintiff was not
available, they did not demolish the premises in dispute but had
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 2 /37
extended threats that they would come again at some convenient
time with force to demolish the premises in question. The
threatened action of the defendant being absolutely illegal,
unwarranted, uncalled for, arbitrary, without jurisdiction on the
following grounds:
i) That the premises are old and have been in posssesion for
the last more than 27 years;
ii) That the plaintiff is a lawful tenant in the premises and as
such, the plaintiff is duly protected by Delhi Rent Control Act:
iii) That no notice, whatsoever, has ever been served on the
plaintiff in this respect to put up his case as is the requirement by
law.
iv) That the land over which the property in question of the
plaintiff is situated, has never been acquired by the Government
and still the same is owned by defendant no.2, Shri Anil Kumar
Jain and, as such, the defendant no.1 has no right, title or interest
to demolish the same.
Thus, the present suit has been filed with the following
prayers:
a) That a decree of permament injunctions be passed
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
thereby restraining the defendants, their officials and agent
from demolishing or evicting or interfering in the
possession of the plaintiff, in any manner, in respect of
Shop no.2, situated at Khasra no.403/90/1 Min. (3-11) at
G.T. Road, Petrol Pump, Azadpur, Delhi, as shown in
more details and in red colour in the enclosed site plan.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 3 /37
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT No.2.
2. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.2
Anil Kumar Jain stating that defendant no.2 never demanded
increase rent from the plaintiff. It was denied that the defendant
no.2 wants to get the shop demolished in conspiracy with the
officials of the defendants 1 and 3. The defendant did not go to
the shop on 11.07.1983 or on any other date with any officials
the defendant no.1 and 3 did not threaten the plaintiff for
demolition of the shop and prayed for dismissal of suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT/DDA.
3. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant
no.3/DDA submitted that the land measuring 7 Bigha 12 Biswas
stands devided into three parts The land bearing no.403/90/2/1
stands acquired vide nd avard no. 1545 and Khasra
no.403/90/2/2/ stands acquired vide avard no. 1545(A). The
possession of both these khasras were take over by the
Government and subsequently placed at the disposal of the DDA
through notifications dated 05.09.1964 and 4.3.78 respectfully.
The land measuring 9 Biswas out of the khasra no.403/90/1 was
acquired through award no.1001 of village Azadpur for
widening of road. Remaining land measuring 4 Bigha and 14
Biswas of Khasra no.403/90/1 belonged to Gaon Sabha. On
organisation of the Gaon Sabha land the same vested with the
Central Govt. and thereafter it has been placed at the disposal of
the DDA through a notification no.50/2190 dated 20.8.74. Thus,
the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and has no locus
standi to file the present suit. The plaintiffs are recent rank
tresspasser over the Govt. land, therefore, the suit is not
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 4 /37
maintainable. It is stated that the land under reference is under
the control and management of the answering defendant. It is
submitted that Shri Mahabir Pershad Jain has no right over the
disputed land. It is submitted that the DDA vas not a party to the
said proceedings before civil or revenue court.
REPLICATION
4. In replication to the written statement of defendants again
the plaintiff reiterated the same facts as stated in plaint. .
5. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were
framed for trial on 05.08.204:-
i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction restraining defendants from
demolishing the suit shop no.2 situated at G.T Road,
Azadpur, Delhi and from evicting the plaintiff from the
suit shop without the due process of law? OPP.
ii) Whether the land on which the suit shop is built is at
the disposal of DDA vide S.O no.2190, dated 20.08.1974,
if so, its effect? OPD-1.
iii) Whether the land in question on which the suit shop
is built comes under Khasra no.403/90/1 adn is a private
land? OPP.
iv) Whether this suit is maintainable in its present form
in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case
titled as Anathula Sudhakar Vs.P Budhi Reddy ARI 2008
SC 2033? OPP
v) Whether the present suit is barred under section 53-
B of DDA Act/ OPD-1
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 5 /37
vi) Whether present suit has not been properlyl valued
for the purpose of of court fees and jurisdiction?OPD-1.
vii) Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined Shri
Manpreet Singh as PW-1 and he has reiterated the averments of
the plaint by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A that the deponent is
grandson of deceased plaintiff Shri Gurjit Singh. It is stated that
defendant no.3 was declared bhumidar by the of Sh. D.R. Jafri
ADM Delhi in Case No. 137/1987 vide order dated 28.07.1988.
The copy of Mutation in favour of The defendant No. 3 already
on record and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. The plaintiff
is tenant and in lawful possession of Shop no.6, G.T. Road (Near
Petrol Pump), Azadpur, Delhi under the defendant No.3 at a
monthly rent of Rs.34/- for the last, about 50 years. Copy of rent
receipts are already on record and the same are exhibited as Ex.
PW1/2(colly). The plaintiff has been running workshop in the
aforesaid tenanted premises under the name and style M/s
Dashmesh Auto Works which workshop is registered with the
various authorities/departments including Telephone; electricity;
shop & establishment; sales tax; income tax etc. Copy of
telephone bills are already on record and the same are exhibited
as Ex. PW1/3(colly). Copy of electricity bills are already on
record and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 (colly). Copy of
sale tax bills are already on record and the same are exhibited as
Ex. PW1/5 (Colly). Copy of income bills are already on record
and the same are exhibited as Ex. PW1/6 (colly). Copy of
registration certificate of the M/s Dashmesh Auto Works which
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 6 /37
workshop is registered with the various authorities/departments.
The copy of registration certificate is already on record and the
same is exhibited as Ex.PW1/7. The landlord/defendant no.3 has
been demanding increase in rent on false plea of rent having
been increased, which demand of the defendant no.3 was illegal,
unwarranted and uncalled for and the plaintiff refused to accede
to the said demand and to increase the rent of the shop under the
tenancy. On being enraged on refusal by the plaintiff to increase
the rent, the defendant no.3 started to contemplate getting the
tenanted premises vacated through back door by getting the
same demolished in conspiracy with the officials of defendants
no.1 and 2. PW-1 relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of Mutation in favour of defendant no. 3
exhibited being photocopy and is Marked as Mark-A.
2. Copy of rent receipts dated 17.08.1972 and
29.11.1983 are exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 (colly). (2 pages),
3. Copy of telephone bills exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 is de-
exhibited being not available on record,
4. Original of electricity bill exhibited as Ex.Pw1/4 is de-
exhibited being not available on record.
5. Copy of sales tax bill exhibited as Ex.PW1/5 is de-
exhibited being not available on record,
6. Original of income tax bills is exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 is
de-exhibitted being not available on record.
7. Copy of Registration Certificate exhibited as Ex.PW1/7
is de-exhibited being not available on record.
7. PW-1 in his cross examination he denied the suggestion
that the present suit has been filed in collusion with Sh.Anil
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 7 /37
Kumar Jain. He admitted that the suit land forms part of khasra
no.403/90/1 of village Azadpur and he has not seen any title
documents in favour of Sh. Anil Kumar Jain or his father etc.
with respect to the Suit Property. He denied the suggestion that
plaintiff, late Sh. Gurjit Singh had not been in possession of the
suit land prior to the filing of the present suit. He denied the
suggestion that plaintiff late Sh. Gurjit Singh sought to encroach
upon the Gaon Sabha land and filed the present suit for the said
purpose. He denied the suggestion that till the time of filing of
the present suit, the suit land was vacant. The suit land is
adjacent to the land in occupation of late Sh. Gurcharan Singh.
He denied the suggestion that neither there existed any structure
on the suit land on 11.07.1983 or on any date prior to that. He
also denied the suggestion that none of the official / staff of
DDA visited the suit land on aforesaid date to demolish any
structure. He denied the suggestion that rent receipts are forged
and have been created to use as evidence in the present suit. He
admitted that Sh.Anil Jain had never issued him any notice in
writing to terminate the tenancy and no eviction petition has
been filed against the plaintiff. He admitted that the name of
plaintiff is not mentioned in any of the revenue record including
khasra girdawari, khatauni etc. He denied the suggestion that the
documents relied upon by me in my affidavit of evidence have
been created after the filing of the present suit to use the same as
evidence in the present suit.
8. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 13.11.2024 on
the statement of LR of plaintiff and matter was fixed for DE.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 8 /37
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
9. Defendant examined Shri Kunal Kumawat as DW-1. In
his evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/A he reiterated the same facts as
in his W.S and placed on record the following documents:-
i). Copy of notification dated 23.05.1963 Ex.DW1/1,
ii).Copy of notification dated 20.08.1974 is Ex.DW1/2.
The testimony of DW-1 is not discussed therein for sake
of brevity as he is formal witness who only placed on record
above documents.
Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 13.11.2024
and matter was fixed for final arguments.
I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for
parties and carefully gone through the record.
Issue wise findings are as follows:-
10.
(a) Issue no.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction restraining defendants from demolishing
the suit shop no.2 situated at G.T Road, Azadpur, Delhi and
from evicting the plaintiff from the suit shop without the due
process of law?OPP.
The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff and
before discussing the evidence pertaining to the present issue
which has been placed on record. It is necesssary to understand
the pleadings specially the plaint filed by plaintiffs herein. The
importance of pleadings has been highlighted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in a celebrated case of Maria Margadia
Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D)
Tr.Lrs.& Ors decided on 21 March, 2012 and the relevant
paragraphs are quoted below:-
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 9 /37
61. In civil cases, pleadings are extremely important
for ascertaining the title and possession of the
property in question.
62. Possession is an incidence of ownership and can
be transferred by the owner of an immovable
property to another such as in a mortgage or lease.
A licensee holds possession on behalf of the owner.
63. Possession is important when there are no title
documents and other relevant records before the
Court, but, once the documents and records of title
come before the Court, it is the title which has to be
looked at first and due weightage be given to it.
Possession cannot be considered in vacuum.
64. There is a presumption that possession of a
person, other than the owner, if at all it is to be
called possession, is permissive on behalf of the
title-holder. Further, possession of the past is one
thing, and the right to remain or continue in future is
another thing. It is the latter which is usually more
in controversy than the former, and it is the latter
which has seen much abuse and misuse before the
Courts.
69. The person averring a right to continue in
possession shall, as far as possible, give a detailed
particularized specific pleading along with
documents to support his claim and details of
subsequent conduct which establish his possession.
70. It would be imperative that one who claims
possession must give all such details as enumerated
hereunder. They are only illustrative and not
exhaustive. Whether he purchased the property or
inherited or got the same in gift or by any other
method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the
consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much
is the rent, license fee or lease amount;
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 10 /37
(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease – then insist
on rent deed, license deed or lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or
otherwise living with him, in what capacity;
as family members, friends or servants etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might
have extinguished his entitlement to possession or
caused shift therein; and
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession
but continue in possession.
71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must
insist on documentary proof in support of the
pleadings. All those documents would be relevant
which come into existence after the transfer of title
or possession or the encumbrance as is claimed.
While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold,
the Court must carefully and critically examine
pleadings and documents.
76. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to
continue in possession of another property, it
becomes necessary for him to plead with specificity
about who was the owner, on what date did he enter
into possession, in what capacity and in what
manner did he conduct his relationship with the
owner over the years till the date of suit. He must
also give details on what basis he is claiming a right
to continue in possession. Until the pleadings raise a
sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient
claim of defence.
79. In dealing with a civil case, pleadings, title
documents and relevant records play a vital role and
that would ordinarily decide the fate of the case.
11. In view of the above principles let us now examine the
case of the plaintiff on the basis of the plaint. Firstly, it is hereby
clarified that present civil right of plaintiff as stated to be derived
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 11 /37
from the Bhumidari rights of defendant Anil Kumar Jain and the
seperate suit of Anil Jain with respect to the same suit property
has already been dismissed by this court wherein he could not
prove his legal/settled possession. Thus, the present suit of
plaintiff also deserved out right dismissal but since the plaintiff
has contested the suit for so many years, this Court is hereby
proceedings to decide the suit on basis of evidence led on record
during trial. Para no.1 of the present amended plaint mentiones
the adddress of the suit property as shop no.2 situated in Khasra
no.43/90/1 of village, Azadpur but in evidence affidavit of PW-1
i.e Ex.PW1/A that address of suit property is stated to be shop
no.6 in place of shop no.2. Further, the para no.1 of the plaint
stated that the tenancy is from the last 50 years since 1955 but in
the para no.3 of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A it is stated to be
from last 50 years from the date of filing of the suit i.e
14.07.1983. Further the present suit being filed on 14.07.1983
and the para no.8 of Evidence Affidavit stated that the suit shop
is in possession of plaintiff since last 20 years from the date of
filing of present suit. Thus, there are contradictions in the
pleadings of the plaintiff itself duration of possession of suit
shop.
Further, it is stated in the plaint as well as evidence
affidavit Ex.PW1/A that the rent of suit premises was Rs.34/- per
month but neither the plaint nor evidence affidavit talks about
the period from when said tenancy commenced. The plaint is
also silent as to the date when increase rent was sought by the
defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain as alleged in the plaint. Both the
plaint as well as evidence affidavit stated that the defendant no.2
Anil Kumar Jain in collusion with officials of DDA and Union
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 12 /37
of India came to the suit property on 11.07.1983 and since
plaintiff was not available at suit property no action was taken
by the officials. It is thus, interesting to note that if plaintiff
doubts the intention of defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain
regarding collusion with the government officials, this court fails
to understand the reason behind the statement of the Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff dated 20.09.2024 whereby he stated to not examine
the defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain who was mentioned as
witness no.7 in the list of witness filed by plaintiff. Also apart
from alleged incident of 11.07.1983 no other incident has been
mentioned in the plaint or the evidence affidavit with respect to
threats given by Government officials to plaintiff.
12. There are various loopholes in the testimony of plaintiff
PW-1. During cross examination by counsel for defendant/DDA
PW-1 denied the suggestion that suit has been filed in collusion
with defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain but to rebut the said
suggestion of the defendant/DDA the plaintiff did not examine
Shri Anil Kumar Jain as the witness despite his name being
mentioned in the list of witness filed by plaintiff. Further, PW-1
denied that the possession was not prior to the filing of the suit
but in order to rebut the said suggestion no document has been
placed on record to show that the possession of plaintiff was
prior to filing of the suit i.e 1983. The document
Ex.PW1/2(colly) i.e rent receipt in the name of deceaed/plaintiff
dated 19.04.1983 mentioned the adddress of property as Khasra
no.403/90/1 and the another rent receipts dated 11.01.1975 also
mention the address of property as 403/90/1. Both the said rent
receipts nowhere mentioned the address of the suit property i.e
shop no.2 of the deceased plaintiff and thus, can not be
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 13 /37
considered as proof of possesion with respect to the suit shop.
Further, the rent receipt dated 19.04.1983 appears to be signed
by defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain but for reasons best known
to the plaintiff he has not been examined him i.e Anil Kumar
Jain to prove the said rent receipt. In view of the above, the rent
receipts Ex.PW1/2(Colly) stands not proved and can not be read
in evidence as prove of possession of the plaitniff as a tenant in
the suit shop. The PW-1 barely denied the suggestion of DDA
that the rent receipt are not forged but as discussed above he has
failed to prove the rent receipt Ex.PW1/2(colly) and there is no
other document aprt from rent receipts to show tenancy created
by defendant no.2 or his deceased father in favour of the
deceased plaintiff/his LR’s.
13. PW-1 also denied the existence of any super structure on
the suit property as on 11.07.1983 but he has not placed on
record any document to show the existence of the said super
structure as on 11.07.1983 or on the date prior to the filing of the
suit. No witness has been examined by plaintiff to corroborate
fact of his long possession and running of business. The
photographs as well as site plan placed on record by plaintiff
have not been exhibited by the plaintiff and thus are not
considered by this court. The PW1 also admitted in his cross
examination that no eviction proceedings has been initiated
against the plaintiff by defendant no.2 Anil Kumar Jain with
respect to suit shop. This fact in view of allegation in the plaint
against defendant no.2 raises doubt in the mind of this court
regarding the present plaint being filed in collusion with
defendant no.2 as suggested by the counsel for DDA. Further the
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 14 /37
document Ex.PW1/3 i.e telephone bills, Ex.PW1/4 copy of
electricity bills, Ex.PW1/5 copy of sales tax bills, Ex.PW1/6
copy of income tax bill, Ex.PW1/7 copy of registration
certificate concerning the suit property as mentioned in the plaint
as well as evidence affidavit was not available on record. The
document Ex.PW1/1 which pertains to the Khatoni with respect
to the Khasra no.403/90/1 wherein mutation was made in the
name of Anil Kumar Jain and his brother Praveen Kumar Jain as
a consequence to the order of additional collector passed in year
of 1988 is of no consideration to this court as the said Anil
Kumar Jain who is defendant no.2 in present case has filed
another suit bearing no.6082/16 with respect to the suit proprerty
alongwith another property titled as Anil Kumar Jain vs DDA &
Ors has already been dismissed by this court by way of separate
judgment.
In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff has clearly
failed to establish his possession in the suit property as alleged in
the plaint.
14. The judgment of three Judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case of Rame Gowda (D) by
Lrs.Vs.M.Varadappa Naida (D)by Lrs. & Anr. decided on
15.12.2003 and relied upon by the counsel for plaintiff to prove
the settled possession of plaintiffs wherein the settled possession
of plaintiff was not disturbed by the Hon’ble Court in facts if
that given case where the dispute was between two individual
parties. But the said judgment do not apply to the facts of present
case where the plaintiff is seeking relief against the government
body. The standard of proof when injunction is sought against
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 15 /37
government body is high compared to case when sought against
private individual.
The above view of the undersigned in also supported by
Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Nathu
Ram vs DDA decided on 01.02.2022 as cited by ld.counsel of
DDA. The contention of plaintiffs that since they are in
possession and can not be dispossesed without due process of
law looses any force when the present suit has been contested by
DDA to dispute the said possession as claimed by plaintiffs and
the adjudication to the issue by this court amounts to following
due process of law irrespective of fact that suit was filed by
plaintiffs. The relevant paragraphs of said judgment are quoted
below:-
25. In so far as the Trial Court’s finding stating that
DDA cannot dispossess the Plaintiffs without due
process of law, is concerned, this is clearly an
erroneous approach inasmuch as even if the
Plaintiffs are stated to be in settled possession, it is
not necessary for the DDA to file a suit to take
possession from them. The DDA can, as a
Defendant, establish before the Court that the
Plaintiffs are in possession of a government land
and the same can result in dismissal of the suit.
Due process of law, as is settled in several
judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court,
does not always require initiation of action by the
owner/ Government. Dismissal of a suit by a
competent Court of law after affording proper
opportunity to the parties, is also a recognized
mode of following the due process of law. On this
issue, the observations of the Supreme Court in
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 16 /37
Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs,
(2012) 5 SCC 370, are as under:
“81. Due process of law means nobody ought to be
condemned unheard. The due process of law means
a person in settled possession will not be
dispossessed except by due process of law. Due
process means an opportunity for the Defendant to
file pleadings including written statement and
documents before the Court of law. It does not
mean the whole trial. Due process of law is
satisfied the moment rights of the parties are
adjudicated by a competent Court.
82. The High Court of Delhi in a case Thomas
Cook (India) Limited v. Hotel Imperial, 2006 (88)
DRJ 545 : (AIR 2007) (NOC) 169) held as under:
“28. The expressions ‘due process of law’, ‘due
course of law’ and ‘recourse to law’ have been
interchangeably used in the decisions referred to
above which say that the settled possession of even
a person in unlawful possession cannot be
disturbed ‘forcibly’ by the true owner taking law in
his own hands. All these expressions, however,
mean the same thing – ejectment from settled
possession can only be had by recourse to a court
of law. Clearly, ‘due process of law’ or ‘due course
of law’, here, simply mean that a person in settled
possession cannot be ejected without a court of law
having adjudicated upon his rights qua the true
owner.
Now, this ‘due process’ or ‘due course’ condition is
satisfied the moment the rights of the parties are
adjudicated upon by a court of competent
jurisdiction. It does not matter who brought the
action to court. It could be the owner in an action
for enforcement of his right to eject the person in
unlawful possession. It could be the person who is
sought to be ejected, in an action preventing the
owner from ejecting him. Whether the action is for
enforcement of a right (recovery of possession) or
protection of a right (injunction against
dispossession), is not of much consequence.”
26. This position was reiterated by this Court in
Bal Bhagwan v. Delhi Development Authority
[CM (M) 416/2019, decided on 18th December,
2020] holding that the ‘due process’ condition
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 17 /37
would be sufficiently met if a person in settled
possession is dispossessed by the dismissal of an
application for interim injunction, as long as the
rights of the parties are adjudicated upon and
opportunity is given to them to present their case.
On the question of ‘due process’, this Court has
observed as under:
“The issue as to what constitutes ‘due process’ is
thus settled beyond any doubt. The Plaintiff, who is
claiming possession, can be dispossessed in the suit
for injunction filed by him. Due process does not
always mean that the owner has to file the suit to
prove his title. So long as a Court of law has
examined the documents and has given a fair
hearing to the parties concerned, the compliance of
due process has taken place. Moreover, due process
of law also does not mean the final adjudication
after trial. It merely means an opportunity being
given to present the case before the Court of law
and the rights of the parties being adjudicated. It
does not mean the whole trial, as per Maria
Margarida (supra).
60. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rame
Gowda (supra) is to the effect that if a party is in
settled possession, his possession cannot be
disturbed without due process of law being
followed. The said case related to a private land in
dispute between two private parties. The lands of
the Plaintiff and the Defendant were adjoining in
nature and there was a dispute as to the
demarcation thereof. Since the identification and
extent of the land itself was in doubt, the Court, in
order to protect the Plaintiff, held that the owner
would have to assert his title in an independent
suit. The facts of the said case cannot be compared
to the facts of the present case to permit an
encroacher and illegal occupant to retain
possession of the suit property.
61. The plea of adverse possession, though pleaded
in the plaint, has been given up in the present
petition and only settled possession is argued. The
question as to whether the Plaintiff is in settled
possession or not, in terms of the test laid down in
Puran Singh (supra) need not be gone into in the
present case, inasmuch as the fact that the Plaintiff
is in possession, in whatsoever capacity, to the
knowledge of the authorities, is clear from theGurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 18 /37
khasra girdawari itself. The person in settled
possession cannot continue to remain in possession
forever. Once a Court of law has arrived at the
conclusion that the person in possession has no
rights, the possession can be taken away. The Trial
Court has not merely relied upon Jagpal Singh
(supra) but also considered various judgments of
the Supreme Court including Rame Gowda (supra)
and Maria Margarida (supra). Thus, the grievance
against the Trial Court judgment that it followed
Jagpal Singh (supra) which is per incuriam is
without any merit.
29. In view of this legal position, the requirement
of adhering to due process of law has been satisfied
in the present case and the Plaintiffs are not being
dispossessed contrary to law.
30. This brings the Court to the question of the
onus of the Plaintiffs of proving their ownership of
the suit property. It is well-settled that in cases of
government land, there is a greater responsibility of
Courts in ascertaining title of third parties. In fact,
the plaintiff in such cases must establish his clear
right, title and nature of possession in the property,
superior to that of the Government authority and
there is a presumption in favour of the
Government. In such cases, the Supreme Court has
clearly observed that it is not sufficient to show
possession or adverse possession merely by some
stray revenue entries or records. This position was
elaborated upon by the Supreme Court in R.
Hanumaiah and Ors. v. Secretary to Government of
Karnataka, Revenue Department and Ors., (2010)
SCC 203:
“Nature of proof required in suits for declaration of
title against the Government
15. Suits for declaration of title against the
government, though similar to suits for declaration
of title against private individuals differ
significantly in some aspects. The first difference is
in regard to the presumption available in favour of
the government. All lands which are not the
property of any person or which are not vested in a
local authority, belong to the government. All
unoccupied lands are the property of the
government, unless any person can establish his
right or title to any such land. This presumptionGurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 19 /37
available to the government, is not available to any
person or individual. The second difference is in
regard to the period for which title and/or
possession have to be established by a person suing
for declaration of title. Establishing title/possession
for a period exceeding twelve years may be
adequate to establish title in a declaratory suit
against any individual. On the other hand,
title/possession for a period exceeding thirty years
will have to be established to succeed in a
declaratory suit for title against government. This
follows from Article 112 of Limitation Act, 1963
which prescribes a longer period of thirty years as
limitation in regard to suits by government as
against the period of 12 years for suits by private
individuals. The reason is obvious. Government
properties are spread over the entire state and it is
not always possible for the government to protect
or safeguard its properties from encroachments.
Many a time, its own officers who are expected to
protect its properties and maintain proper records,
either due to negligence or collusion, create entries
in records to help private parties, to lay claim of
ownership or possession against the government.
Any loss of government property is ultimately the
loss to the community. Courts owe a duty to be
vigilant to ensure that public property is not
converted into private property by unscrupulous
elements.
16. Many civil courts deal with suits for declaration
of title and injunction against government, in a
casual manner, ignoring or overlooking the special
features relating to government properties.
Instances of such suits against government being
routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of
proper contest, merely acting upon the oral
assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are
common. Whether the government contests the suit
or not, before a suit for declaration of title against a
government is decreed, the plaintiff should
establish, either his title by producing the title
deeds which satisfactorily trace title for a minimum
period of thirty years prior to the date of the suit
(except where title is claimed with reference to a
grant or transfer by the government or a statutory
development authority), or by establishing adverse
possession for a period of more than thirty years. In
such suits, courts cannot, ignoring the
presumptions available in favour of theGurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 20 /37
government, grant declaratory or injunctive decrees
against the government by relying upon one of the
principles underlying pleadings that plaint
averments which are not denied or traversed are
deemed to have been accepted or admitted. A court
should necessarily seek an answer to the following
question, before it grants a decree declaring title
against the government : whether the plaintiff has
produced title deeds tracing the title for a period of
more than thirty years; or whether the plaintiff has
established his adverse possession to the
knowledge of the government for a period of more
than thirty years, so as to convert his possession
into title.
Incidental to that question, the court should also
find out whether the plaintiff is recorded to be the
owner or holder or occupant of the property in the
revenue records or municipal records, for more
than thirty years, and what is the nature of
possession claimed by the plaintiff, if he is in
possession – authorized or unauthorized;
permissive; casual and occasional; furtive and
clandestine; open, continuous and hostile; deemed
or implied (following a title).
17. Mere temporary use or occupation without the
animus to claim ownership or mere use at
sufferance will not be sufficient to create any right
adverse to the Government. In order to oust or
defeat the title of the government, a claimant has to
establish a clear title which is superior to or better
than the title of the government or establish
perfection of title by adverse possession for a
period of more than thirty years with the
knowledge of the government. To claim adverse
possession, the possession of the claimant must be
actual, open and visible, hostile to the owner (and
therefore necessarily with the knowledge of the
owner) and continued during the entire period
necessary to create a bar under the law of
limitation. In short, it should be adequate in
continuity, publicity and in extent. Mere vague or
doubtful assertions that the claimant has been in
adverse possession will not be sufficient.
Unexplained stray or sporadic entries for a year or
for a few years will not be sufficient and should be
ignored. As noticed above, many a time it is
possible for a private citizen to get his name
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 21 /37
entered as the occupant of government land, with
the help of collusive government servants. Only
entries based on appropriate documents like grants,
title deeds etc. or based upon actual verification of
physical possession by an authority authorized to
recognize such possession and make appropriate
entries can be used against the government. By its
very nature, a claim based on adverse possession
requires clear and categorical pleadings and
evidence, much more so, if it is against the
government. Be that as it may.”
31. Thus, the Plaintiffs had a heavy onus to
establish the following:
(i) That they had acquired the suit property through
legally recognized documents such as registered
sale deed, allotment from governmental authorities,
etc. However, no such documents were produced
by the Plaintiffs.
(ii) That the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit
property which falls in Khasra No.48/7 – this ought
to have been established by positive evidence and
not by an inference.
(iii) That the Plaintiffs had to rely on documents
proved in accordance with law, even to establish
possession – however, in this case, only some
spattering revenue records which were marked and
not even exhibited, were relied upon by the
Plaintiffs.
32. The plaint in the present case is bereft of any
pleadings as to how ownership/title was acquired
by the Plaintiffs to the land in question. It is
relevant to note that even paragraph 2 of the plaint
shows the manner in which the Plaintiffs state that
the suit property is not acquired by the Land
Acquisition Collector and was not handed over to
the DDA. This reflects the state of mind of the
Plaintiffs who seem to have themselves had an
apprehension that the suit property may be falling
in the acquired portion of the land.
36. In view of the above settled legal position, that
mere sporadic or stray entries in the revenue
records cannot confer title, and the facts mentioned
above, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff
has failed to establish that there is any substantial
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 22 /37
question of law which deserves to be adjudicated
upon in the present second appeal. In fact, from the
evidence which has emerged from the record, it is
clear that apart from some mention in khasra
girdawaris, there are no other concrete documents
which have been filed by the Plaintiff to discharge
the heavy onus that is placed on him.
37. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the
suit property in question is stated to be near a
South Delhi Colony, adjacent to Safdarjung
Enclave/Green Park and is very valuable. The
Plaintiff who is in possession of a large part of this
suit property, cannot continue to remain in
possession, as permitting the same would be a
giving a premium to illegal encroachments and
occupations on public land.
39. Accordingly, DDA is free to take steps in
accordance with law.
40. This Court notes that the present case is also
another example of the ills that plague civil
litigation in respect of government acquired land.
The acquisition in this case dates back to 1961. The
land was placed at the disposal of DDA in 1975.
The suit in this case was filed in 1984 i.e., nine
years later and was adjudicated upon by the Trial
Court in 2011, i.e., more than 25 years later. The
Appellate Court gave its decision in 2020. The
DDA had taken an objection as to the
maintainability of the suit itself, right at inception
in its written statement. However, the suit had to go
through the full journey of trial and final
adjudication. In such cases, advantage is taken of
the fact that due to rampant encroachment,
demarcation cannot be usually done in the manner
as prescribed by law. Illegal occupants of such
properties continue to enjoy prime
government/public land without paying a single
penny to the government for use and occupation.
As government authorities continue to defend
against suits filed by such occupants, the public is
deprived of the use and enjoyment of the said land
which has been acquired for public purposes. Thus,
it is incumbent upon the Trial Courts, to consider
the maintainability of such suits at the initial stage
in a manner that they deem appropriate, so as to
ensure that such long delays do not take place,
especially in respect of government land.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 23 /37
The above legal principles when applied to present case of
plaintiffs based on similar facts make the case of plaintiff
unreliable and the present plaintiffs who appear to be encroacher
on public land can not be allowed to continue to remain in
possession.
15. The notification dated 20.08.1974 of Ministry of Work
and Housing in exercise of power confront by section 22(i) of
DDA Act 1957 the Central Government have placed the
Azadpur village among other villages mentioned in the
notification at the disposal of DDA for purpose of development
and maintenance of said lands as green and for taking such steps
as may be required to serve the said purpose subject to the
condition that DDA shall not make, or cause or permitted to be
made any construction on the said lands. The above notification
and its signifance has been beautifully explained in the case of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rajinder Kakkar And Ors. vs Delhi
Development Authority decided on 3 November, 1993 as cited by
ld.counsel of DDA . The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:-
(17) Time has now come where the society and the
law abiding citizens are being held to ransom by
persons who have no respect for law. The wheels
of justice grind slowly and the violators of law are
seeking to take advantage of the laws delays. That
is why they insist on the letter of the law being
complied with by the respondents while, at the
same time, showing their-complete contempt for
the laws themselves. Should there not be a change
in the judicial approach or thinking when dealing
with such problems which have increased manifold
in recent years viz., large scale encroachment onGurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 24 /37
public land and unauthorised construction thereon,
most of which could not have taken place without
such encroachers getting blessings or tacit approval
from the powers that be including the Municipal or
the local employees. Should the Courts give
protection to violators of the law? The answer in
our opinion must be in the negative. Time has now
come when the Courts have to be satisfied, before
they interfere with the action taken or proposed to
be taken by the governmental authorities qua
removal of encroachment or sealing or demolishing
unauthorised construction specially when such
construction, like the present, is commercial in
nature.
(18) Before action for demolition or removal of
encroachment is taken the Court must be satisfied,
prima facie,on the basis of some document or other
tangible evidence that the petitioners or the
applicants have a legal title to the property or a
right to remain in possession thereof. Where a
person is an encroacher and never had any right to
legal possession of public land, the Courts should
not grant any injunction or relief which will have
the result of permitting or protecting the continued
illegal occupation of public land. There may be a
case where at a point of time the possession or
occupation may have been valid under a lease or a
grant and which lease or grant may have
subsequently been wrongfully terminated and the
termination challenged, such a .case may, however,
fall in a different category where the question of
balance of convenience will have to be carefully
examined specially when the action of termination
of lease or grant is seriously challenged. But, in a
case like the present, where at no point of time the
petitioners had any valid right, title or interest to
the property the Court ought not to grant any relief
to such a petitioner even if there has been anyGurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 25 /37
procedural irregularity by the respondent while
seeking to get back possession of public land.
20) Another cardinal principle which has to be
followed in a writ jurisdiction is that the petitioners
must come to the Court with clean hands. Is such
the case here? The answer is no. The following
facts speak for themselves: 1.The petitioners have
no legal title to the land; 2. The land vests with the
Central Government and is a public property; 3.
There is encroachment by the petitioners on the
land without permis- sion from the Government; 4.
Construction has been raised on public land
without submitting any building plans;
5.AccordingtotheMasterPlannoconstruction can be
raised on the land in question because this is a
green area; 6. Before seeking the transfer of land
‘No Objection Certificate’ was not obtained and the
provisions of the Delhi Land (restriction of
transfer) Act, 1972 were not complied with.
(21) The conduct of the petitioners is such that they
are not entitled to any relief from this Court. Even
if it be assumed that a show cause notice had to be
issued under Section 30 of the Delhi Development
Act before any demolition could be effected and
non- issuance of the show cause notice has resulted
in the breach of law, nevertheless no relief can be
granted to the petitioners because of the
irregularities which have been committed by the
respondents. The respondents are entitled to regain
possession of land which belongs to them and
which has been encroached upon and the
petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of
their own wrong. It is possible that the petitioners
may be innocent victims of land mafia but be that
as it may, the petitioners should have known that in
law this land vested in the Central Government and
they should not have purchased the same in small
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 26 /37
parcels and then raise construction without
following any building bye-laws. This is not a case
where poor houseless people have put up shelters
for themselves for their residence. Here is a case
where public land has been encroached upon and is
sought to be used for erecting structures for
commercial use.
Also, in another case of Bakshi Ram vs Delhi
Development Authority on 1 February, 1995 as cited by
ld.counsel of DDA, The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
observed as follows:-
(9) I have heard the arguments which have been
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
against the judgment of the learned Additional
District Judge. The petitioner has failed to produce
any document by which his legal title or possession
could be established. He has miserably failed to
demonstrate how he was carrying on his business at
Tank Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. It is established
beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner
being a tress passer and encroacher of public land is
entitled to no relief from this Court. The process of
court would not lend a helping hand to the
trespassers and the encroachers of public land.
Further, Punjab-Haryana High Court in case of Mohan Lal vs
Mohan Singh decided on 7 October, 1994 observed as follows:-
5. Apart from the three ordinary ingredients which
must be satisfied for grant of injunction in favour
of a plaintiff/petitioner, namely, a strong prima
facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable
injury, in cases involving public properties and
public interest, the Courts have to bear in mind as
to whether the grant of injunction would beGurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 27 /37
conducive or detrimental to public interest. The
Courts have to take note of the fact that
Government lands belonging to the public at large
and the community as a whole is entitled to enjoy
the properties belonging to the Government. In
fact, the Government holds property as a trustee of
the people and, therefore, where any attempt is
made by an individual or a group of individuals to
misappropriate/misuse or otherwise interfere with
the enjoyment of public property by the people in
general, the Courts have to be extremely cautious
in granting injunction in favour of such person only
on the ground that he is in possession of the
property. Possession of public property by such an
individual or a group of individuals is no
possession in the eyes of law. Such a person cannot
claim any right whatsoever on the basis of
unlawful occupation of the public property and
Courts would be justified in declining any
assistance to such a person. In such like cases, a
plaintiff cannot claim parity with a person who has
a dispute with another individual over a private
property. Moreover, the Courts have to act as
guardian of the public property and should not pass
an order of injunction in favour of a person who
has made unauthorised encroachment of the public
property. For these reasons, I hold that the order
passed by the learned Additional District Judge
does not suffer from any jurisdiction error or any
other legal infirmity requiring interference by this
Court.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 28 /37
16. The plaintiff have filed the certified copy of judgment
with respect to land acquisition order pertaining to Khasra
no.403/90/2/1 in favour of plaintiffs father but the said orders
has no significance in present suit where the land in dispute
pertians to Khasra no.403/90/1. The counsel for plaintiff has also
relied upon the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated
28.03.2007 wherein in the para no.23 it has been observed by
Hon’ble High Court that the unacquired land would have to be
treated as private land and as not in Union of India upon
urbanisation of village-Azadpur. This Court can not concur with
the submission of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff as above order of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in para no.34 itself clearly stated
that “nothing stated in this order would be construed as an
expression on the mertis of the controversy. Observations in
present order are prima facie expression of an opinion”. As as
we know the opinions are not legally binding on courts below.
So the said order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi which has not
given any finding to the said effect is of no help to plaintiffs.
Thus, the plaintiff herein have miserably failed to discharge the
burden upon them to show their legal/settled possession and they
can not thus, claim relief of injunction to be not dispossed
without due process of law.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maria Margadia
Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D)
Tr.Lrs.& Ors decided on 21 March, 2012 observed as follows,
relevant paragraphss are quoted below:
81. Due process of law means nobody ought to be
condemned unheard. The due process of law meansGurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 29 /37
a person in settled possession will not be
dispossessed except by due process of law. Due
process means an opportunity for the defendant to
file pleadings including written statement and
documents before the Court of law. It does not
mean the whole trial. Due process of law is
satisfied the moment rights of the parties are
adjudicated by a competent Court.
82. The High Court of Delhi in a case Thomas
Cook (India) Limited v. Hotel Imperial 2006 (88)
DRJ 545 held as under:
“28. The expressions `due process of law’, `due
course of law’ and `recourse to law’ have been
interchangeably used in the decisions referred to
above which say that the settled possession of even
a person in unlawful possession cannot be
disturbed `forcibly’ by the true owner taking law in
his own hands. All these expressions, however,
mean the same thing — ejectment from settled
possession can only be had by recourse to a court
of law. Clearly, `due process of law’ or `due course
of law’, here, simply mean that a person in settled
possession cannot be ejected without a court of law
having adjudicated upon his rights qua the true
owner.
Now, this `due process’ or `due course’ condition is
satisfied the moment the rights of the parties are
adjudicated upon by a court of competent
jurisdiction. It does not matter who brought the
action to court. It could be the owner in an action
for enforcement of his right to eject the person in
unlawful possession. It could be the person who is
sought to be ejected, in an action preventing theGurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 30 /37
owner from ejecting him. Whether the action is for
enforcement of a right (recovery of possession) or
protection of a right (injunction against
dispossession), is not of much consequence. What
is important is that in either event it is an action
before the court and the court adjudicates upon it.
If that is done then, the `bare minimum’
requirement of `due process’ or `due course’ of law
would stand satisfied as recourse to law would
have been taken. In this context, when a party
approaches a court seeking a protective remedy
such as an injunction and it fails in setting up a
good case, can it then say that the other party must
now institute an action in a court of law for
enforcing his rights i.e., for taking back something
from the first party who holds it unlawfully, and,
till such time, the court hearing the injunction
action must grant an injunction anyway? I would
think not. In any event, the `recourse to law’
stipulation stands satisfied when a judicial
determination is made with regard to the first
party’s protective action. Thus, in the present case,
the plaintiff’s failure to make out a case for an
injunction does not mean that its consequent
cessation of user of the said two rooms would have
been brought about without recourse to law.”
In view of above discussion and in light of principles laid
down by honble by Supreme Court, the adjudication of present
case contested by defendant no.1,2 and 3 more specifically by
DDA it can not be said that due process of law has not been
followed. The plaintiffs here in are not entitled to any injunction
being failed to establish legal settled possession. Accordingly,
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 31 /37
the issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff in favour of
defendant/DDA.
18. Issue no.(ii). Whether the land on which the suit shop is
built is at the disposal of DDA vide S.O no. 2190 dated
20.08.1974, if so, its effect?OPD-3.
The onus to prove the said issue is upon defendant/DDA.
Vide notification above stated the whole of village Azadpur is
under the disposal of DDA and in view of above discussion
since the plaintiff has failed to show his settled/legal possession
on the suit land it can be safely presumed that the said land is
government land at disposal of DDA and the DDA is under duty
to preserve the same from illegal encroachment by any person
including present plaintiffs. Thus, the said issue is also decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant/DDA.
Issue no.(iii). Whether the land in question on which the Suit
Shop is built comes under khasra no. 403/90/1 and is a private
land?OPP
The onus to prove the said issue is on plaintiff. The
plaintiff in their plaint and PW-1 in his testimony and as per
documents filed on record the suit shop is under Khasra
no.403/90/1. The demarcation report dated 23.01.2015 also
stated that the disputed property i.e suit shop falls under Khasra
no.403/90/1 but the plaintiffs as discussed above in issue no.(i)
has failed to show that the land in question is a prviate land
belonging to them. The said issue is also accordingly decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant/DDA.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 32 /37
Issue no.(iv). Whether this suit is maintainable in its present
form in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P Buchi Reddy AIR 2008 SC 20337OPP
The onus to prove the said issue again on plaintiffs. To discuss
the maintainability of present suit in view of above judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India let’s understand that the basic
principles laid down in this case which are quoted below:-
17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits
for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable
property, is as under :
(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and
he does not have possession, a suit for declaration
and possession, with or without a consequential
injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title
is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of
possession, he has to sue for possession with a
consequential injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or
threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an
injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned
only with possession, normally the issue of title
will not be directly and substantially in issue. The
prayer for injunction will be decided with reference
to the finding on possession. But in cases where de
jure possession has to be established on the basis of
title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites,
the issue of title may directly and substantially
arise for consideration, as without a finding
thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue
of possession.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 33 /37
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a
suit for injunction, unless there are necessary
pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title
[either specific, or implied as noticed in
Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments
regarding title are absent in a plaint and where
there is no issue relating to title, the court will not
investigate or examine or render a finding on a
question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even
where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if
the matter involves complicated questions of fact
and law relating to title, the court will relegate the
parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit
for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue
in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding
title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which
parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is
simple and straight-forward, the court may decide
upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for
injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the
normal rule that question of title will not be
decided in suits for injunction.
But persons having clear title and possession suing
for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier
and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for
declaration, merely because some meddler
vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to
encroach upon his property. The court should use
its discretion carefully to identify cases where it
will enquire into title and cases where it will refer
to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory
suit, depending upon the facts of the case.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 34 /37
Taking guidance from above principles laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Antalula Sudhakar Vs .P.
Buchi Reddy, since the present case has been filed by plaintiffs
on basis of their settled possession claiming their
ownership/Bhumidari rights over suit land, the maintainability of
suit is was not questioned initially but defendant/DDA
challenged the title of plaintiff’s in their WS and also throughout
trial. The facts of present case falls under category (b) cases
cited above as the possession is alleged by plaintiffs on basis of
title in present case. While deciding issue no(i) against plaintiffs
this court has discussed the issue of title which has arisen for
consideration to decide legal possession of plaintiffs and find the
same to be defective and plaintiffs can not claim themselves to
be Bhumidar of suit land. Thus, the observations in the present
suit with respect to title of plaintiffs is only for purpose of
deciding present suit of simplicitor injunction filed by plaintiffs.
The present case filed by plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of
the Anatula Sudhakar case. Accordingly, the above issue is
decided in favour of the defendant/DDA and against the
plaintiff.
Issue no.(v). Whether the present suit is barred under Section 53-
B of DD Act?OPD-3
The onus to prove the same is upon defendant no.3. There
is no bar of the above provision in view of section 53-B (3) of
DD Act wherein the suit for injunction does not require the
mandatory notice. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favour of
the plaintiff and against defendant/DDA.
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 35 /37
Issue no.(vi). Whether present suit has not been properly valued
for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD-3.
The onus to prove the same is upon defendant no.3 no
evidence has been led by defendants with respect to present issue
challenging the valuation of suit. Since present suit is filed with
prayer of simplicitor injunction can not be said to be under
valued and hence the issue is decided in favour of plaintiff
against the defendant/DDA.
19. Before parting with the judgment, this court wish to follow
the Principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maria
Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De
Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors decided on 21 March, 2012 observed
as follows, relevant paragraphss are quoted below:
False claims and false defences
84. False claims and defences are really serious
problems with real estate litigation, predominantly
because of ever escalating prices of the real estate.
Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate
properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants
in the hope that the other party will tire out and
ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge
amount.
This happens because of the enormous delay in
adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic
approach is adopted, then this problem can be
minimized to a large extent.
85. This Court in a recent judgment in
Ramrameshwari Devi and Others (supra) aptly
observed at page 266 that unless wrongdoers are
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 36 /37
denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be
difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for
and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure
that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for
litigation. It is a matter of common experience that
Court’s otherwise scarce time is consumed or more
appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled
for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided
that this problem can be solved or at least be
minimized if exemplary cost is imposed for
instituting frivolous litigation.
20. The present case which is in view of above discussion is
no doubt based on false claim and has wasted precious time of
this court in this present frivilous litigation and thus, the cost of
Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon both the plaintiffs jointly to be
deposited in the “Avlamban Fund Scheme,2024 maintained in
State Bank of Indian, Tis Hazari Court complex, Delhi saving
account number.43599660056, within one month from date of
order.
Relief
21. In view of the above discussion, the present suit of
the plaintiff stands dismissed. The plaintiff is held to be not
entitled to any relief of permanent injunction as prayed in prayer
of plaint.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
23. File be consigned to the Record Room as per rules.
Announced in the open court (Neha Pandey)
on 3rd March, 2025 JSCC/ASCJ/Guardian Judge
West, Tis Hazari, Delhi
Gurjit Singh Vs DDA & Ors. 37 /37
