Mcd v. Daljit Singh Bhatia & Ors

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J.

OCTOBER 15, 2008 mm

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order : 15.10.2008 + RFA 746/2003 MCD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Smita Shankar, Advocate versus DALJIT SINGH BHATIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9.4.2003 suit filed by the respondents seeking decree for possession and mesne profits has been decreed. Appellant and DESU who were impleaded as defendants 1 and 2 have been directed to surrender possession of the land mark "X" and "Y" in the site plan Ex.PW-1/1. Mesne profits in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- have been awarded, to be paid in the ratio 9:1 by the appellant and DESU. 3. The short issue which arose for consideration before the learned Trial Judge was whether the respondents were the owner of the suit land and whether the appellant and DESU had trespassed into the same. An ancillary issue also arose whether the claim for possession and mesne profits was barred by limitation. Certain technical defences were urged and in respect whereof issues were framed but since at the hearing of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant has urged submissions limited to the findings returned on issue No.7 and additional issue No.1 we would be noting the facts relevant for said issues. 4. Issue No.7 was whether the plaintiffs (respondents) are the co-owners of the plot in suit. Additional issue No. 1 was (I) whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property? 5. The respondents proved title of their predecessor through the medium of the sale deed Ex.P-1 which records that the property sold to S.Niranjan Singh is bearing Municipal No.27, Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar. The linkage of the said municipal No. to the agricultural land on which the unauthorized colony Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar was carved out is through the medium of Ex.PW-1/4 and Ex.PW-1/5, being a certified copy of the Khata Khatoni and Khasra Girdawari showing that Niranjan Singh (the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) was in possession of 1 bigha and 18 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No.601/110 in the revenue estate of Village Seelam Pur. 6. Learned Trial Judge has accordingly returned a finding that the sale deed Ex.P-1 coupled with the entries in the revenue record establish title of S.Niranjan Singh as owner of the land comprised in khasra No.601/110 and that Municipal No.27, Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar was assigned to the said land. 7. It is not in dispute that a large track of agricultural land of village Seelam Pur came under unauthorized colonization. The colony was called Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. 8. The issue whether the land sold under the sale deed Ex.P-1 was the same which was comprised in Khasra No.601/110 and whether it was this land which was in occupation and possession of MCD has been answered by the learned Trial Judge with reference to a suggestion put by the counsel for the MCD to PW-1. The same is as under:- "Q: It is put to you that the MCD is functioning on plot bearing Municipal No.6521/2, Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar built on Khasra No.601/110." 9. The answer to the question was that PW-1 was not aware as to wherefrom MCD was referring to Municipal No.6521/2, Subhash Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar but admitted that it was correct that the school was built on land comprised in Khasra No. i.e. 601/110. 10. There being no evidence led by the MCD that the land was given Municipal No.6521/2, learned Trial Judge has opined that the suggestion of the MCD that the land in question wherefrom a municipal school was functioning was built on Khasra No.601/110 concluded that matter against the MCD, that the site occupi