Indermeet Kaur, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2004 which had reversed the findings of the trial Judge dated 08.07.2004. Vide judgment and decree dated 08.07.2004, the suit filed by the Plaintiff i.e. Hakam Singh seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants to the effect that he be not dispossessed from his taxi service station i.e. New Amar Taxi Service Station (at the site near Kalkaji, Bhairon Mandir, opposite Nehru Place, Mandir Marg, Kalkaji Mandir, New Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. Suit of the Plaintiff stood decreed.
(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff is that in 1976, the then District Magistrate Mr. Sushil Kumar sanctioned the aforenoted taxi stand in the name of the Plaintiff. This document i.e. the communication dated 07.01.1976 of the District Magistrate had been proved in the trial court as Ex. PW -6/1. Further contention of the Plaintiff is that on 21.05.1980, the then Commissioner of Police had sanctioned the taxi stand as a general taxi stand in the name of the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff is running this taxi stand now since the last 20 years. This document had been proved as Ex. PW -8/1. Further contention of the Plaintiff is that right of the Plaintiff as a tehbazari right had been recognized; the Plaintiff has regularly been paying tehbazari charges to the Defendant i.e. MCD; receipts to the said effect had been proved as Ex. PW -8/4 to Ex. PW -8/20; these documents are w.e.f. 1976 to 1993. Further contention was that the electricity and water connection including telephone connection has also been made by the Plaintiff. The Defendant was threatening to dispossess him from the site; cause of action had arisen on 21.09.1993. Present suit was accordingly filed. In the written statement, the defence of the Defendant was that the land was initially owned by the Ministry of Rehabilitation (MOR) and has since been handed over to the DDA; it at the disposal of the DDA. Reliance has been placed upon Ex.DW -1/1 & DW -1/2 which had been proved through the version of DW -1 a Junior Engineer of the DDA to substantiate this submission. The impugned judgment had examined both the said documents. Ex.DW -1/1 dated 02.09.1982 is a Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation stating that certain unutilized lands within the urban limits of Delhi under the charge of Department of Rehabilitation have been transferred to the DDA. Along with this document two annexures have been appended which make reference to "developed lands" and "undeveloped lands". In the category of "developed lands" Kalkaji finds mention at serial No. 10; total area mentioned is 16247. In the list of "un -developed lands" the name of locality at serial No. 9 is Kalkaji and the total land in acres mentioned is 84.32. These serial numbers have been highlighted by learned Counsel for the Appellant to substantiate his submission that these documents had substantiated the stand of the DDA that the site i.e. suit property had been transferred by the Ministry of Rehabilitation to the DDA. Attention has also been drawn to Ex.DW -1/2. This is a Government of India letter sent by the Assistant Engineer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division to the DDA wherein it has been mentioned that two more sites have been handed over to the representatives of the DDA which included (i) Lands near police station Opposite Nehru Place Shopping Centre -cum -office complex, Near Bharo Mandir Petrol Pump\ (ii) Open land in between house No. C/55 & C/56 Kalklaji
(3.) THE impugned judgment had noted that both these documents do not in any manner establish that the suit land has also since been transferred to the DDA. Testimony of DW -1 had been adverted to. DW -1 in his cross -examination had admitted that in Ex.DW -1/1, there is no mention of the site i.e No. 105 which is the suit land; he has no other record to show that the land had been taken over by the DDA. DW -1 has further admitted that the suit land is a taxi stand and as per the survey conducted it was in the name of Hakam Singh i.e. the Plaintiff. The documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiff i.e. Ex. PW -6/1, Ex. PW -8/1 & Ex. PW -8/4 to Ex. PW -8/20 had weighed in the mind of the first appellate court to hold that the Plaintiff had proved that since 1976 under the orders of the District Magistrate which were thereafter confirmed by the Commissioner of Police, he was occupying this taxi stand; he was paying the tehbazari charges to the MCD. Per contra, the Defendants have failed to prove their ownership on the suit land or that the suit land has been transferred to the DDA by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. Neither of the aforenoted two documents relied upon by the Defendants i.e. Ex.DW -1/ & Ex. DW -1/2 had any reference to the suit land.;