Delhi Development Authority and Others vs Pushpa Lata and Others

Veena Birbal, J.

CM 366/2012

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

RSA 2/2012 & CM367/2012

In this regular second appeal, appellant-DDA has challenged two concurrent judgments of the two courts below i.e., of first court dated 1st December, 2005 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and the second court/first appellate court dated 19th January, 2011 whereby the suit of the respondents 1 to 8 for permanent injunction has been decreed. Shri Hans Raj, the original plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants i.e., appellants-DDA and respondent No. 9-UOI herein from demolishing the room/kotha forcibly and illegally, mentioned red in the site plan affected with the plan, situated in Khasra Nos.2931/1631/2/1 and Khewat No. 178, Khatuani No. 479 at Village Mehrauli, New Delhi. After the death of Shri Hans Raj in the year 1998, the said suit was pursued by his legal heirs who are respondents 1 to 8 in the present appeal. It was alleged in the plaint that original plaintiff i.e. Sh. Hans Raj was the co owner/co bhumidhar of the suit land duly recorded in Khasra Girdwari. Plaintiff had alleged that he had become the owner of the said land by virtue of decree passed in suit for declaration in his favour in suit No. 479/69 by the court of Shri Ravi Kumar, the then Ld. Sub Judge, Delhi. The plaintiff had constructed a room on the said land which was duly mentioned in the said suit for declaration. Appellant-DDA had opposed the aforesaid suit by contending that the said property is a Gaon Sabha land and on the urbanization of the village, land had vested in the Central Government and the same was placed at the disposal of DDA vide notification No. S.O.No.2190 dated 20.8.74. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed and the evidence was led by the parties. The plaintiffs before the learned Civil Judge had proved on record copy of the earlier plaint, judgment and decree in suit No. 479/69 wherein original plaintiff i.e., Hans Raj was declared co owner of the suit land. In the said suit, the order of the Revenue Assistant dated 30.9.59 declaring the land as bhumidari of gaon sabha was held null and void and Union of India were permanently restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The said suit was decided on 20th March, 1975. It is not the case of the appellant-DDA that the said finding was ever challenged in the higher forum.

The learned Civil Judge has held that the subject matter of two suits is same i.e., suit No. 479/1969 and suit No. 564/1993. In suit No. 479/1969 vesting the suit land with Gaon Sabha was held null and void and UOI was restrained from interfering with possession of plaintiff over suit land whereas the order of the Revenue Assistant dated 30.9.59 has already been held null and void. In these circumstances, the learned Civil Judge has held that the DDA can''t re-agitate the issue.

The First Appellate Court has upheld the findings of the learned Civil Judge vide impugned order dated 19th January, 2011. DDA is claiming ownership over suit land through UOI which has already been decided against UOI in earlier suit as is mentioned above. The DDA is trying to re-agitate the issue. Both the courts below have rightly held that DDA can''t re-agitate the issue. A second appeal u/s 100 CPC is only entertained if a substantial question of law arises. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Appeal stands dismissed.