Smt. Sumitra Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

judgment.

¶10It was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff on 29th May, 2017, that since the plaintiff in the plaint only seeks restraint against the defendants from taking action with respect to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9 and since the defendants were not claiming any right in the said Khasras and had also filed a written statement to the said effect, what was the need for any further proceeding in the suit and the suit could be disposed of by binding the defendants to their statement.

¶11The counsel for the plaintiff however wants this Court to protect the property, with construction of which photographs are filed, by contending that the same in fact is in Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9 as claimed by the plaintiff and not in Khasra Nos.60/4 & 60/7 as claimed by the defendants and by further contending that the demarcation done by the defendants is wrong. It was further argued that since the plaintiff is in possession of the property as depicted in the photographs, since the year 2005, the defendants are not entitled to disturb the possession of the plaintiff, save by instituting proceedings against the plaintiff under the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Reliance was placed on Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769, Swaraj Kishore Arora Vs. Indian Bank (2016) 230 DLT 269

(DB), Partap Singh Vs. Om Prakash (2006) 127 DLT 213, Om Parkash Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4724, Babu Ram Vs. Govt.

of NCT of Delhi 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3890 and on Juglal Vs. Dy. Commissioner 2003 (70) DRJ 256.

¶12The counsel for the applicant Om Prakash contended that the claim of the plaintiff is false and it is the applicant Om Prakash, who is the recorded owner and Bhumidar of Khasra No.60/9.

¶13Per contra, the counsel for the defendants contended that the action of the defendants sought to be interdicted with by filing this suit is in compliance with directions of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh supra and the suit is thus misconceived.

¶14I have considered the controversy.

¶15As far as the claim of the applicant Om Prakash is concerned, all that can be observed is that the plaintiff has filed this suit only for injunction simplicitor and not for the relief of declaration of her title to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9 and as per the dicta of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, there is no need for this Court, in this suit for injunction, to adjudicate title claimed by the plaintiff to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9. Thus, the applicant Om Prakash is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit.

¶16IA No.5687/2017 is dismissed and applicant Om Prakash is at liberty to take such proceedings which he may be entitled to.

¶17As far as the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff are concerned, the plaintiff has not approached this Court with a challenge to the report of demarcation which indeed could not have been a subject matter of challenge in Civil Court. It is also not the plea of the plaintiff in the plaint that though

she is in possession of Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9 but the defendants are wrongly treating her as in possession of Khasra Nos.60/4 & 60/7. In fact, Khasra Nos.60/4 & 60/7 do not even find any mention in the plaint. The plaintiff, without making any pleadings, cannot expect this Court to adjudicate on a case for which no pleadings have been made.

¶18It is also not as if the plaintiff has approached this Court to protect her possession. The plaintiff has approached this Court claiming title to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9 and seeking to restraint the defendants with respect to the said Khasra numbers. Once the defendants have made a statement and reiterated the same in the written statement that they are not taking any action with respect to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9, there is no need for this court to put this suit through the process of framing of issues and trial, as provided for in the CPC. If the relief, which the plaintiff is seeking, can be granted on the first date itself, the Courts are not to mechanically and blindly put the suit through the process of completion of pleadings, admission/denial of documents, framing of issues and trial, just to keep themselves and the Advocates busy.

¶19I may also record, that as far as the challenge of the plaintiff to demarcation report is concerned, the plaintiff though claims lawful title to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9, neither has a mutation in the revenue records in her favour nor has any registered document of title with respect thereto in her favour. What is filed before this Court are photocopies of documents in the nature of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt, Affidavit and Possession Letter with respect to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9 as described in the plaint. Such documents, in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of

Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656, have been held to not confer any title. Thus, the plaintiff, on her own pleadings, has been unable to make out a case of lawful title to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9 as claimed.

¶20The suit is thus disposed of, by binding the defendants to their statements that they are not taking any action with respect to Khasra Nos.60/8 & 60/9 of Village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, District South, New Delhi and leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn up.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 23, 2018 'bs'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 23rd May, 2018. + CS(OS) 138/2017 & IAs No.3752/2017 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC), 3753/2017 (u/O XXVI R-9&10A CPC) & 5687/2017 (of Om Prakash u/O I R-10 CPC) SUMITRA DEVI .... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Adv. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …...Defendants Through: Mr. Devesh Singh and Ms. Neelam Khotiya, Advs. with Mr. Mojpal Singh, BDO. Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Adv. for applicant Om Prakash in IA No.5687/2017. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, i.e. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Gaon Sabha, Dera Mandi and the Deputy Commissioner (South), from in any manner dispossessing the plaintiff or demolishing the property/house of the plaintiff built on Khasra Nos.60/8 & 9 of Village Dera Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, District South, New Delhi, pleading; (i) that the plaintiff, on 18th September, 2005, purchased a farm of approximately two acres in Village Mandi, Tehsil Mehrauli, built on Khasra Nos.60/8 & 9, in the revenue estate of Village Mandi; (ii) that the plaintiff entered into peaceful possession of the said property; (iii) that initially Khasra No.60/8 was owned by Ranjeet Singh son of Prem Raj and whose name is duly reflected in the Khatauni with respect to the land and Khasra No.60/9 was owned by Om Prakash son of Chittar and whose name also is reflected in the Khatauni; (iv) that Ranjeet Singh, on 27th February, 1981, vide notarised General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and Receipt, sold Khasra No.60/8 to Braham Arneja son of N.K. Arneja; (v) that Om Prakash, on 27th February, 1981, by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and Receipt also sold Khasra No.60/9 to Braham Arneja son of N.K. Arneja; (vi) that Khasra Nos.60/8 & 9 were, on 24th April, 1996 sold by Braham Arneja by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipt and Possession Letter in favour of Veenita Jain wife of A.K. Jain and Meenu Jain wife of Ashok Jain; (vii) that Veenita Jain and Meenu Jain, on 24th May, 2000 by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipt and Possession Letter, sold the said property to David Paul son of S.K. Paul; (viii) that David Paul, on 18th September, 2005, similarly sold the property to Mohd. Afzal Salmani son of Mohd. Fazal Salmani; (ix) that Mohd. Afzal Salmani, on 11th May, 2006, similarly sold the property to Prince Wilson son of J.I. Wilson; (x) that Prince Wilson, on 27th July, 2006 sold back the property to Mohd. Afzal Salmani; (xi) that Mohd. Afzal Salmani, on 8th August, 2007 similarly by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will, Receipt and Possession Letter sold the property aforesaid to the plaintiff; (xii) that the plaintiff has been in peaceful and lawful possession of the property by building a house thereon; (xiii) that the husband of the plaintiff, on or around 10th December, 2006, obtained electricity connection with respect to the said house; (xiv) that the property is bound by a boundary wall; (xv) that the property comprises of a house built on 300 sq. yds., a swimming pool, lawns, orchards, servant quarters, guard room etc.; (xvi) that suddenly, on 17th March, 2017, the officials of the defendants came to the property with 50 armed police personnel and bulldozer and demolished a portion of the boundary wall, servant quarters, guard room etc., without any prior notice, order or proceeding claiming that the property belonged to Gaon Sabha, Dera Mandi; (xvii) that no demarcation was ever carried out by any official and no notice of any demarcation was given to the plaintiff; (xviii) that even if Gaon Sabha is claimed to be the owner of the land, it had lost title to the land as the possession of the plaintiff thereof is for a period of more than three years; (xix) that the possession of the plaintiff is lawful and protected by the provisions of the De