Delhi High Court
Reliance Eminent Trading And … vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 June, 2025
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 09.06.2025
+ CS(COMM) 582/2021 & I.A. 43981/2024
RELIANCE EMINENT TRADING AND COMMERCIAL
PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
K.R. Sasiprabhu, Mr. Gaurav Mitra,
Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Mr. Manan
Shishodia, Ms. Riya Kumar and Mr.
Sumer Sethi, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Defendant
Through: Mr.Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Sanjay Katyal, Ms. Manika
Tripathy, Standing Counsels with Mr.
Shashi Pratap Singh, Ms. Smridhi
Sharma, Mr. Saurabh Seth, Ms.
Muskaan Garg and Ms. Neelam Preet
Deol, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
IA No. 6914/2022 (Under Order XXIII A Rule 4 CPC filed by the
plaintiff for a summary judgment)
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant seeking
money decree in the sum of Rs. 4,59,73,61,098/- along with pendente lite
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 1 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until
the date of actual payment.
2. Facts in brief leading to filing of the present suit are that
defendant/DDA announced a public auction for various freehold commercial
plots including plot no. 13 ad-measuring about 9,556 sq. mtrs. situated at
Non-Hierarchical Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi [hereafter
referred to as the „plot‟], for which it had fixed the reserve price of
Rs.164,86,00,000/-. The plaintiff [then known as Amazon Enterprises Pvt.
Ltd.] submitted its bid and deposited 25% of the reserve price i.e.
Rs.42,25,00,000/- [Rupees Forty Two Crore and Twenty Five Lacs only].
The bid of Rs.164,91,00,000/- placed by plaintiff was found to be the
highest and was accepted by the defendant.
3. Accordingly, plaintiff was called upon to deposit the balance sum of
Rs.122,66,00,045/- including the documentation charges. On 12.07.2007,
plaintiff made the balance payment as sought by the defendant. Thereafter,
plaintiff vide treasury challan dated 03.12.2007 made further payment of
Rs.9,89,46,025/- towards Stamp Duty and Transfer Duty for execution of
the Conveyance Deed of the plot.
4. Upon receiving complete consideration in respect of the plot and
confirmation of payment of Stamp Duty and Transfer Duty by the plaintiff,
defendant vide letter dated 09.01.2008 called upon the plaintiff to take
possession of the plot on or before 15.01.2008. Accordingly, the plaintiff
duly took physical possession of the plot on 15.01.2008. Subsequently,
defendant executed Conveyance Deed dated 06.02.2008 in favour of
plaintiff thereby conveying all its rights, title and interest in the plot to
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 2 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
plaintiff on freehold basis. The said Conveyance Deed was duly registered
on 07.03.2008.
5. Pursuant to the execution of the Conveyance Deed, the plaintiff made
paid Rs.24,00,036/- towards property tax from financial year 2008-09 to
2017-18.
6. In the meanwhile, name of the plaintiff was changed from „Amazon
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.‟ to „Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Pvt.
Ltd.‟ vide „Fresh Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to Change of Name‟
dated 23.04.2009, issued by the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli.
7. The plot was originally part and parcel of a land comprised in khasra
nos. 182(3-14), 183(4-09) and 243(4-12) ad-measuring 12 Bigha and 15
Biswas in Village-Kotla Mahigiran, Delhi [hereafter referred to as the
„land‟] belonging to one Smt. Simla Devi.
8. It is the pleaded case of plaintiff that the defendant had initiated
acquisition proceedings in respect of the „land‟ under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 whereby an Award dated 19.09.1986 bearing no. 205/1986-87
came to be passed. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendant
admittedly, never made any payment of compensation to the original owner
of the land.
9. Upon passage of time, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
[„Acquisition Act of 2013‟, for short] came into force on 01.01.2014 and
subsequently, Smt. Simla Devi, the original owner of the „land‟, filed a writ
petition being W.P.(C) 5688/2015 before this Court praying for a declaration
that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the „land‟ are deemed to have
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 3 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Acquisition Act of 2013. This Court
vide judgment dated 15.11.2016 allowed the said petition and declared the
acquisition proceedings as having lapsed.
10. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant/DDA contested the
aforesaid writ petition, however, plaintiff was neither intimated of the cloud
cast over the title of defendant in respect of the „plot‟, which was part of the
„land‟, nor was it informed of the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings
under the Acquisition Act of 2013, which had direct nexus and impact over
its rights, title and interest in respect of the plot. As such, plaintiff was
deprived of an opportunity of intervening in the said proceedings in order to
put forth its case and secure its rights.
11. The judgment dated 15.11.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
5688/2015 was challenged by the defendant in SLP (Civil) (CC) 8526/2017
[subsequently re-numbered as Civil Appeal No. 6345/2017]. The Hon‟ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 04.05.2017 granted leave and dismissed the
appeal. However, defendant/DDA was granted six months‟ time to re-
acquire the property. Relevant part of the decision reads thus:
“5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the
Appellant is given a period of six months to exercise its
liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of
the acquisition proceedings afresh.
6. We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition
proceedings are initiated within the said period of six
months from today by issuing a Notification under Section
11 of the Act, the appellant, if in possession, shall return
the physical possession of the land to the owner.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 4 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
12. Incidentally, the defendant did not re-acquire the property in terms of
the above quoted order of Hon‟ble Supreme Court and lapse of acquisition
attained finality. Plaintiff claims that proceedings before Hon‟ble Supreme
Court were also concealed from plaintiff for reasons best known to the
defendant. Plaintiff was never impleaded as a party in Civil Appeal No.
6345/2017.
13. It is the case of the plaintiff that while it was unaware of the above
proceedings, on 27.11.2016 it came to be illegally dispossessed from the
plot when unknown persons entered the premises and forcefully took
possession from the plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff lodged a complaint on
13.12.2016 and wrote various letters to the defendant on 25.04.2017 and
16.06.2017. However, the plaintiff states that on 05.12.2017, the defendant
for the first time informed plaintiff of the lapse of acquisition vide letter
dated 20.11.2017. Upon this, plaintiff sought refund of the consideration
and statutory payments made by it along with interest @ 15% vide Demand
Letters dated 28.12.2017, 10.12.2018 and 07.08.2019 and thereafter issued a
notice under Section 53(b) of DDA Act, 1957 on 20.09.2019.
14. In the meanwhile, DDA filed a Review Petition against the judgment
of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2017 which came to be dismissed
on 17.10.2019. Curative petition filed thereafter by the defendant/DDA was
also dismissed. Hence the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on
02.11.2020.
15. Defendant/DDA has filed its written statement. In the written
statement, defendant has taken a stand that the „land‟, of which the „plot‟ is a
part, was acquired by the Government vide Award No. 205/1986-87 and
physical possession of the same was handed over by the LAC/L&B
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 5 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
Department to the defendant on 05.03.1997 for the purposes of planned
development of the area. The acquisition qua the subject land was
challenged by the original owner before this Court. The said case came to
be decided by a common judgment dated 01.08.2001 passed in case titled
Parshadi v. Union of India, bearing W.P.(C) 923/1997. Against the said
decision, Union of India had preferred an appeal titled as Union of India v.
Parshadi by way of LPA NO. 519/2001 and the Division Bench of this
Court vide order/judgment dated 26.09.2002 held that the land so acquired
by the Government vested in the State absolutely free from all
encumbrances. Thus, the stand of the defendant/DDA is that it was the
absolute owner of the subject land and plaintiff had acquired a clean title of
the plot with the execution of the registered Conveyance Deed in its favour.
16. However, defendant/DDA has not disputed the litigation qua the
subject land that commenced in the year 2015 with the filing of W.P.(C)
5688/2015 by the original owner Smt. Simla Devi. It is also not in dispute
that the acquisition was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated
15.11.2016 passed in W.P.(C) 5688/2015 and that the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court while disposing of the Civil Appeal No. 6345/2017 had granted
liberty to the defendant to re-acquire the land within a period of six months,
but the same was never done. The defendant/DDA has asserted that the
plaintiff was well aware of W.P.(C) 5618/2015, as well as, the proceedings
before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6345/2017.
17. It is further asserted by the defendant/DDA that the plaintiff was in
active collusion and connivance with Mr. Sachin Bidhuri, who allegedly
dispossessed the plaintiff. It is alleged that after handing over the possession
of the land to the plaintiff and upon execution of the registered Conveyance
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 6 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
Deed in favour of the plaintiff, defendant/DDA had absolutely no role to
play thereafter and protection of possession of the plot was the exclusive
duty of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that the plaintiff is still in physical
control and possession of the plot.
18. It is pleaded in the written statement that the suit warrants outright
rejection as the plaintiff has admittedly chosen to not even offer the
possession of the subject land against refund of the sale consideration.
19. That apart, it is also the stand of the defendant that the present suit is
barred by limitation. Plaintiff also filed its replication denying allegations in
the written statement and reiterating its case set up in the plaint.
20. After completion of pleadings, plaintiff has filed the present
application praying for summary judgment against the defendant for
decreeing the suit filed against the defendant inter alia on the ground that
defendant does not have any defence or justification whatsoever to retain the
amount paid by plaintiff and the defendant/DDA has no real prospect of
successfully defending against the claim of plaintiff. Additionally, in view
of the clear and unimpeachable documentary evidence placed on record by
plaintiff in support of its claim, which is neither denied nor disputed by
DDA, and further the defence put forth by the defendant in its written
statement being baseless and illusory, there is no other compelling reason
why claim of the plaintiff should not be disposed of before recording of oral
evidence.
21. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
plaintiff submits that once the acquisition has been set aside, the auction and
transfer of land by way of conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff, has
become void. He submits that since the DDA has retrospectively lost its title
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 7 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
over the land, the title of the plot it conveyed subsequently to the plaintiff is
no longer valid as well.
22. Elaborating on his submission, he submits that by virtue of judgment
of this Court dated 15.11.2016 passed in W.P.(C) 5688/2015, whereby
acquisition of „land‟ was quashed, the „land‟ including the „plot‟ in question
now vest in the original owner, therefore, there is no need to separately
cancel the conveyance, as such conveyance has been rendered void and non
est.
23. He submits that objection of the defendant that suit is barred by
limitation cannot be sustained, inasmuch as cause of action for filing the suit
first arose on 05.12.2017, when the defendant/DDA for the first time
informed plaintiff about the lapse of acquisition vide its letter dated
20.11.2017.
24. He submits that the judgment dated 15.11.2016 of this Court quashing
the acquisition of land attained finality when the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
dismissed the civil appeal preferred by the defendant/DDA on 04.05.2017.
He submits that vide order dated 04.05.2017 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had
given six months‟ time to defendant/DDA to re-acquire the „land‟, which
period expired on 04.11.2017.
25. Thereafter, the defendant/DDA despite repeated reminders of the
plaintiff on 28.12.2017, 02.02.2018, 07.08.2018 and 20.09.2019, did not
refund the money to plaintiff. Mr. Sethi, thus, submits that the suit is within
limitation.
26. As regards the stand of the defendant that plaintiff continues to be in
possession of the land and has not returned the same, he submits that the
complaint to the SHO, PS Sarita Vihar and the representations made to the
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 8 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
defendant since 2017 clearly show that the plaintiff was dispossessed and
this fact was put to the knowledge of the defendant. The said fact has not
been denied by the defendant until filing of written statement.
27. Inviting attention of the Court to the affidavit dated 06.11.2023 filed
by defendant/DDA, Mr. Sethi contends that this Court had specifically
sought response of defendant as to whether the original owner has asked for
the return of land, after the orders of this Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court declaring the acquisition invalid. The defendant in its said affidavit
has categorically admitted that no such grievance has been raised by Smt.
Simla Devi. He submits that this itself shows the fact that the plaintiff is not
in possession of the land, has not been disputed. Therefore, defendant‟s
current stand is only an afterthought.
28. Mr. Sethi submits that this Court appreciating the facts of the case and
finding no plausible defence, as an interim measure, directed the defendant
to secure the principal by depositing the same with this Court under Order
XIII-A Rule 6 and 7 CPC vide order dated 01.02.2024.
29. The aforesaid interim order was challenged by the defendant by
preferring SLP (C) Diary No. 14735/2024 and the same was also dismissed
by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 27.05.2024, which further confirms the
finding that defence of the defendant is improbable.
30. He further submits that the defence set up by the defendant is
completely illusory and there is no denial to the fact that DDA has lost title
of the land, of which the subject plot is a part. Accordingly, the
defendant/DDA has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim
since no plausible defence has been raised and no triable issues arise
requiring oral evidence.
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 9 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
31. In support of his submission Mr. Sethi places reliance on the decision
of this Court in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. vs Mr. Kunwer Sachdev &
Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764, as well as, the decision of Bombay
High Court in M/s Jayant Industries vs Indian Tobacco Company, 2022
SCC OnLine Bom 64.
32. Per contra, Mr. Arvind Varma, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the defendant/DDA submits that the present application is
misconceived inasmuch as the written statement filed by the defendant in the
present suit has brought on record a cogent defence which not only warrants
a proper trial on merits, but also warrants dismissal of the suit as well.
33. He submits that the pleas raised by the plaintiff in the suit have been
controverted by the defendant/DDA, as a result of which triable issues have
arisen. He points out the reasons to show why claim of the plaintiff should
not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence, which are enumerated
herein below:
a. The case of the plaintiff is that it has lost possession over the plot in
question to some alleged miscreants, whereas, the specific case of the
defendant/DDA is that the plaintiff is very much in possession of the
subject land. In any case, to maintain the present suit for refund of the
consideration amount, the plaintiff is bound to firstly hand over or
offer to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the subject
land.
b. It is the specific objection of defendant/DDA in its written statement
that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and in the light of
the rival pleadings of the parties, it is a mixed question of fact and
law. There is a factual dispute as to from which date the period ofSignature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 10 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
limitation will start to run. The dispute is also as to when the
defendant made plaintiff aware as regards the litigation in which the
original owner of the land had sought quashing of the acquisition
proceedings.
c. The plaintiff has not made the person or persons as parties to the suit
to whom it claims to have lost possession of the subject land.
34. Mr. Varma submits that the aforesaid issues would require evidence
to be led by each side as the issues, which are highly contentious and have
huge financial implications for the public exchequer.
35. Accordingly, Mr. Varma submits that the present case does not
warrant grant of summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.
36. He places reliance on the decisions of this Court in Rockwool
International A/S & Anr. v. Thermocare Rockwool (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
(2018) 254 DLT 90; Bright Enterprise Private Limited v. MJ Bizraft, 2017
SCC OnLine Del 6394; and Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. (supra).
37. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
documents on record. However, before proceeding to examine the merits of
the case, it would be apposite to advert to the legal position on the aspect of
passing of summary judgment.
38. The Division Bench of this Court in Bright Enterprise Private
Limited (supra) referring to Rule 4 of Order XIIIA CPC, enumerated the
procedural stipulations to be followed in an application seeking summary
judgment and reply thereto. The Court emphasized that the provisions
relating to summary judgment which enable courts to decide claims
pertaining to commercial disputes without recording oral evidence are
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 11 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
exceptional in nature and out of the ordinary course which a normal suit has
to follow, therefore, such stipulations must be scrupulously followed. The
relevant considerations to be kept in mind by the court deciding an
application such as the present one, have been highlighted by the Division
Bench. The Court also held that the window for passing of summary
judgment is only after service of summons on the defendant and prior to the
Court framing issues in the suit. The relevant part of the judgment reads
thus:
“22. The provisions relating to summary judgment which
enables courts to decide claims pertaining to commercial
disputes without recording oral evidence are exceptional in
nature and out of the ordinary course which a normal suit has
to follow. In such an eventuality, it is essential that the
stipulations are followed scrupulously otherwise it may result
in gross injustice. As pointed out above, a specific period of
time has been provided during which an application for
summary judgment can be made. That period begins upon the
service of summons on the defendant and ends upon the court
framing issues in the suit. Even if we were to accept, which we
do not, the argument of the respondents that the Court had suo
moto powers to deliver summary judgment without there being
any application, those powers also would have to be exercised
during this window, that is, after service of summons on the
defendant and prior to framing of issues. In addition to this, we
also reiterate that, in our view, a summary judgment under
Order XIIIA CPC is not permissible without there being an
appropriate application for summary judgment. The contents of
an application for summary judgment are also stipulated in
Rule 4 of Order XIIIA. The application is required to precisely
disclose all material facts and identify the point of law, if any.
In the event, the applicant seeks to rely on any documentary
evidence, the applicant must include such documentary
evidence in its application and identify the relevant content of
such documentary evidence on which the applicant relies. TheSignature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 12 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
application must also state the reason why there are no real
prospects of succeeding or defending the claim, as the case
may be.
23. Rule 4(2) of Order XIIIA also requires that where a hearing
for summary judgment is fixed, the respondent must be given at
least thirty days’ notice of the date fixed for the hearing and the
claim that is proposed to be decided by the Court at such
hearing. Rule 4(3) of Order XIIIA makes provision which
enables the respondents to file a reply within the stipulated time
addressing the matters set forth in clauses (a) to (f) of the said
sub-rule. In particular, the reply of the respondent ought to
precisely disclose all the material facts and identify the point
of law, if any, and the reasons why the relief sought by the
applicant for summary judgment should not be granted. Just
as in the case of the applicant, the respondent is also given the
opportunity to rely upon documentary evidence in its reply
which must be included in the reply and the relevant content
identified. The respondent’s reply is also required to give
reason as to why there are real prospects of succeeding on the
claim or defending the claim, as the case may be. Importantly,
the reply must also concisely state the issues that should be
framed for trial and that it must identify what further evidence
would be brought on record at trial that could not be brought
on record at the stage of summary judgment. The reply should
also state as to why in the light of the evidence or material on
record, if any, the Court should not proceed to summary
judgment.”
(emphasis supplied)
39. Likewise in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. (supra), Coordinate Bench
of this Court dealt with the procedural requirements for passing summary
judgment under Order XIII-A CPC. It was held that Rule 3 of Order XIII-A
CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant
summary judgment against the defendant where the Court considers that the
defendant has no real prospects for successfully defending against the claim
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 13 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be
disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The Court explained that the
expression “real” obligates the Court to examine whether there is “realistic”
as opposed to “fanciful prospects of success”. The Court, thereafter, went on
to observe that unlike ordinary suits, the Court need not hold trial in
commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact, in the event
the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks real prospect of
successfully defending the claim. In other words, notwithstanding the
existence of disputed questions of facts, the Court can pass a summary
judgment if it is of the opinion that the defendant lacks real prospect of
successfully defending the claim. The relevant excerpts of the decision read
thus:
“49. Consequently, this Court is of the view that when a
summary judgment application allows the Court to find the
necessary facts and resolve the dispute, proceeding to trial
would generally not be proportionate, timely or cost effective. It
bears reiteration that the standard for fairness is not whether
the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the
Court the confidence that it can find the necessary facts and
apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute.
xxx xxx xxx
91. Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial
disputes, empowers the Court to grant a summary judgement
against the defendant where the Court considers that the
defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending the
claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim
should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.
The expression “real” directs the Court to examine whether
there is a “realistic” as opposed to “fanciful” prospects of
success. This Court is of the view that the expression “no
genuine issue requiring a trial” in Ontario Rules of Civil
Procedure and “no other compelling reason…..for trial” inSignature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 14 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis.
Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the
Court, while hearing such an application, can make the
necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the
same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive
means of achieving a fair and just result.”
(emphasis supplied)
40. In light of the test laid down in the above decisions, the case set up by
the parties to the present suit need to be analyzed in order to determine
whether the defendant has set up a probable defense and if the rival
contentions demand leading of evidence to settle the controversy.
41. Indisputably, one Smt. Simla Devi, the original owner of the „land‟, of
which the „plot‟ is a part, had challenged the acquisition proceedings on the
strength of which the defendant acquired rights in the „land‟, by filing
W.P.(C) 5688/2015. This Court vide judgment dated 15.11.2016 allowed
the said petition and declared the acquisition proceedings as having been
lapsed. The judgment of this Court was upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 04.05.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6345/2017
and has since attained finality. Thus, the defendant/DDA has undoubtedly
lost title over the land, and concomitantly the title in the plot passed on to
the plaintiff by the DDA was also lost and became invalid.
42. The backdrop of aforesaid facts, at first blush, gives an impression
that the DDA is obliged to forthwith refund to the plaintiff the consideration
amount apropos the „plot‟ once acquisition proceedings qua the „land‟ have
been declared to have lapsed, but a closer scrutiny of the facts indicates that
it is not so.
43. The case of the plaintiff is that on 27.11.2016, some unknown persons
led by one Mr. Sachin Bidhuri, claiming to be the rightful owner of the plot
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 15 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
and referring to some purported decision of this Court without giving any
particulars thereof, forcibly trespassed into the subject plot and took
possession of the same. Essentially, the case of the plaintiff is that the
possession of the „plot‟ has been taken by the original owners, which
position has been disputed by the DDA. The relevant extract from the plaint
setting out the case of the plaintiff in that behalf reads thus:
“(x) In the year 2015 , Smt. Simla Devi, the original owner
of the said land filed a writ petition – WP(C) No. 5688 of
2015 before this Hon’ble Court, praying for a
declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect
of the Said Land, are deemed to have lapsed by virtue of
Section 24(2) of the Acquisition Act, 2013 . This
Hon’ble Court, vide its judgment dated 15.11.2016,
allowed the said petition, and granted the aforesaid
declaration sought for by Smt. Simla Devi, the Plaintiff
therein. Notably, the Defendant herein appeared in, and
contested the said writ petition. However, for reasons
best known to the concerned officials of Defendant, the
Plaintiff was neither intimated of the cloud over the title
of the Defendant with regard to the Subject Plot, nor was
it informed of the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings,
which had a direct nexus and impact to its right, title and
interest in respect of the Subject Plot. As such, the
Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity of intervening in
the said proceedings in order to put forth its case and
secure its rights.
(xi) The Plaintiff, as aforesaid, was completely unaware
about the cloud over the title of Defendant title in respect
of the Subject Plot, and the pendency of the proceedings
before this Hon‟ble Court, as also the aforesaid judgment
dated 15.11.2016. In the midnight of 27.11.2016, some
unknown persons reached the Subject Plot and
demolished the rear boundary wall thereof, and
damaged some construction structures of the Plaintiff at
the site. The said persons, led by one Sachin Bidhuri,Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 16 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
claimed to be the rightful owner of the Subject Plot,
referring to some purported decision of the “High
Court” without giving any particulars, and forcibly
trespassed into the Subject Plot, and took possession
thereof. The said persons also posted their own guards at
the Subject Plot in order to forcibly prevent the entry of
the officials of the Plaintiff therein. The Plaintiff was, as
such, constrained to file a police complaint dated
13.12.2016 under Diary No. 54-B with Police Station
Sarita Vihar, Delhi, complaining of the aforesaid
offences. However, despite persistent follow-up by the
Plaintiff, the police authorities failed to take any action
in this regard.”
(emphasis supplied)
44. On the other hand, case set out by defendant/DDA in the written
statement is that the plaintiff/applicant continues to be in possession of the
„plot‟ and it cannot claim refund of the monies paid by it without offering
possession of the land back. Another objection taken in the written
statement is that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,
inasmuch as the persons who allegedly dispossessed the plaintiff claiming
themselves to be the rightful owners of the land, have not been impleaded as
party. The relevant excerpts from the written statement read thus:
“5. That the suit is also not maintainable as the plaintiff is
seeking refund of sale consideration qua the subject land
without offering to return the subject land to the defendant.
The plaintiff continues to retain and enjoy the exclusive
control and possession of the subject land till date and thus it
cannot be permitted to continue with the suit without
surrendering / offering to surrender the vacant peaceful
possession of the subject land to the defendant.
xxx xxx xxx
7. That the suit also warrants rejection for non-joinder of
necessary parties. The plaintiff has allegedly claimed to have
been illegally disposed from the subject land at the hands ofSignature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 17 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
some persons claiming to be the original owners of the subject
land and has failed to array them as a necessary and proper
party in the present suit.”
45. This Court endeavoured to resolve the controversy as regard
possession of „plot‟ and directed defendant/DDA to file an affidavit setting
out, whether the original owner Smt. Simla Devi has ever approached the
defendant to claim the suit land or raised any grievance that possession of
the suit land is presently not with her or her assignees. In deference, the
defendant/DDA filed an affidavit dated 06.11.2023 stating that Smt. Simla
Devi never approached the DDA with any grievance or otherwise at the time
of auction of the subject land, at the time of execution of conveyance, and
handing over of possession of the „plot‟ to the plaintiff. Relevant excerpt
from the aforesaid affidavit of the DDA reads as under:
“3. It is also pertinent to state that Smt. Simla Devi never
approached DDA with any grievance or otherwise even at the
time of auction of the subject matter land, and the subsequent
conveyance in favour of and handing over of the possession of
the land to the Plaintiff herein.”
46. The affidavit filed by the DDA does not solve the conundrum apropos
possession of the plot, inasmuch as it is not clear as to who is in actual
physical possession of the „plot‟. It is an admitted case of the parties that
Smt. Simla Devi was the original owner of the „land‟, of which the „plot‟ is a
part, before commencement of acquisition proceedings. The case of the
plaintiff, however, is that possession was taken by some miscreants led by
one Sachin Bidhuri claiming himself to be the rightful owner of the
property. The plaintiff has claimed so on the strength of the letters apprising
the DDA in that behalf and also a complaint made to the police, but neither
there is a pleading nor any evidence to establish that Sachin Bidhuri is the
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 18 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
successor-in-interest of original owner Smt. Simla Devi. Further, there is no
undisputed or unimpeachable material on record to suggest that Sachin
Bidhuri is in physical possession of the plot being its rightful owner.
47. Undisputedly, the „plot‟ is part of the „land‟ which was acquired by
LAC and physical possession of the same was handed over by the
LAC/L&B Department to the DDA on 05.03.1997 for the purpose of the
planned development of the area. It is also an admitted position that DDA
handed over possession of the „plot‟ to the plaintiff. Now, after declaration
that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed qua the „land‟, it is obligatory
on part of the defendant/DDA to return physical possession of the land to its
original owner. Even the Hon‟ble Apex Court vide its order dated
04.05.2017, while dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 6345/2017, directed the
defendant/DDA to return the physical possession of the land to the original
owner, in case it is in possession of the same.
48. Merely because the rightful owner has not claimed possession of the
„plot‟ from DDA or that it has been stated by the DDA in its affidavit that
„Smt. Simla Devi never approached DDA with any grievance or otherwise
even at the time of auction of the subject matter land, and the subsequent
conveyance in favour of and handing over of the possession of the land to
the Plaintiff herein‟, will not absolve the DDA from its obligation to hand
over physical possession of the plot to its rightful owner. That could happen
only when plaintiff would hand over possession of the said „plot‟ to the
DDA.
49. Since the DDA had handed over the possession of the „plot‟ to the
plaintiff upon receiving total consideration of the „plot‟, the plaintiff is
obliged to return the physical possession of the said plot to the DDA, or at
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 19 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
least it will have to establish by leading evidence that the possession is
already with the original owner namely, Smt. Simla Devi or her successor-
in-interest, in order to claim refund of the monies paid by it towards the
consideration of „plot‟.
50. Since the plaintiff was in possession of „plot‟ as owner thereof, the
plaintiff ought to have protected its possession, or taken steps to recover the
possession when it was dispossessed. No reason for plaintiff‟s inaction to
take such steps is forthcoming. The only justification given is that the
plaintiff had written to the DDA and made police complaint as well.
51. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as on date, per the case of the
plaintiff, neither it nor the DDA is in possession of the „plot‟. If at any time
in the future, original owner or her successor-in-interest claims possession of
the „plot‟ from the DDA, it will not be in a position to hand over the same to
them.
52. The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that without
offering possession of „plot‟ back to the DDA, or at least establishing that
the rightful owner is already in possession of the „plot‟, the plaintiff cannot
claim refund of consideration amount paid by it.
53. Ergo, the defence put forth by the defendant cannot be said to be
baseless and illusory. The summary procedure as prescribed in Order XIII-A
CPC is to be resorted to by the Courts for passing of judgment in
commercial disputes, where it could be disposed of without recording of oral
evidence, which is not possible in the present case. Recording of oral
evidence appears to be imperative as regards the issue of possession, which
this Court finds to be contentious and triable.
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 20 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
54. Thus, the suit cannot be determined in a summary manner. The
plaintiff in the present application has failed to meet the twin tests that – (a)
the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and;
(b) there is no such compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed
of before recording of oral evidence.
55. As this Court has opined that recording of oral evidence is necessary
and summary judgment cannot be passed, all other issues are left open for
the parties to be raised at the appropriate stage.
56. In the overall conspectus of facts noted above, the present application
deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
CS(COMM) 582/2021
57. List for directions before the Roster Bench on 28.08.2025.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 09, 2025
jg
Signature Not Verified CS (COMM) 582/2021 Page 21 of 21
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:09.06.2025
21:03:10
[ad_1]
Source link