Phool Singh Yadav v. Delhi Developmnet Authority

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 28, 2018 Bs..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 28th August, 2018. + RSA 121/2018 CHANCHAL DEVI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Nair, Mr. Avdhesh Nuniwala and Mr. Sachin, Advs. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: None. AND + RSA 122/2018 PHOOL SINGH YADAV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Nair, Mr. Avdhesh Nuniwala and Mr. Sachin, Advs. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CMs No.34762/2018 & 34763/2018 in RSA No.121/2018 & CMs No.34766/2018 & 34767/2018 in RSA No.122/2018 (all for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. RSA 121/2018 & CM No.34761/2018 (for stay) & RSA 122/2018 & CM No.34765/2018 (for stay) 3. These two Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugn the judgments and decree [both dated 31st May, 2018 in RCA No.01/2017 and RCA No.56/2016, both of the Court of Senior Civil Judge (North-West)] allowing the First Appeals under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the judgments and decree [both dated 17th October, 2016, in CS No.559/2014 (Case No.9578/2016) and CS No.529/2014 (Case No.9577/2016), both of the Court of Civil Judge (West)] allowing the suits filed by each of the appellant/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant DDA and Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi from demolishing the construction of the house of each of the appellant/plaintiff and from dispossessing each of the appellant/plaintiff therefrom. 4. Though both the appeals arise from separate judgments in separate suits/appeals but the nature of controversy and the arguments in both are the same and these Regular Second Appeals have also been filed by the same counsel and on the same grounds and proposing the same substantial questions of law and have been argued as one. Thus, both the appeals are decided by this common judgment. 5. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has been heard and the copies of the relevant Suit Court records annexed to the memorandums of appeal perused. 6. The appellant/plaintiff in RSA No.121/2018 claimed to be the owner of built up pakka house bearing No.18/4, measuring 50 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No.48/4, situated in the colony of Mange Ram Park, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, in the area of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi. 7. The appellant/plaintiff in RSA No.122/2018 claimed to be the owner of built up house bearing No.40/1D, measuring 50 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No.47/3, situated in Gali No.3, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, Part-II, in the area of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi. 8. The suits were filed by each of the appellant/plaintiff to restrain the respondent/defendant DDA and the SHO, Police Station-Sultanpuri from causing any "further demolition/damage" to the properties aforesaid of each of the appellant/plaintiff. 9. Each of the appellant/plaintiff claimed to be the owner of their respective properties, not by virtue of any Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed/Transfer Deed or allotment made by any governmental authority, but by virtue of Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney and Will etc. which in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 206 have been held by the Supreme Court to not constitute documents of title. 10. It was the case of each of the appellant/plaintiff that they were in possession of their respective properties since the year 2000. 11. The respondent/defendant DDA contested the suits inter alia pleading (i) that while the house of the appellant/plaintiff in RSA No.121/2018 was situated in Khasra No.47/2 (and not in Khasra No.48/4), the house of the appellant/plaintiff in RSA No.122/2018 was situated in Khasra No.47/2 (and not in Khasra No.47/3); (ii) that the land underneath the house of each of the appellant/plaintiff was acquired under the provisions of the Land A