JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS. Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jagdish Prasad And Ors.
Delhi Development Authority And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE core issue involved in this case is whether the plaintiffs/appellants, who are in possession of property No. E-424 and E-425, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi i.e. public land, but have no title, right or interest are entitled to permanent injunction about dispossession from the said property against its true owner ? Their case is this. Both the appellants are real brothers. They have been living in the above said property along with their father for the last more than 31 years. The appellants had constructed a temple in 1960. They contended that they had become the owners of the suit property by adverse possession. The respondents posed threats to the appellants to evict them from the suit property in August, 1991. Consequently, they filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from dispossessing/demolishing the suit property bearing No. E-424-425, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi.
(2.) THE defence set out by the DDA in its written statement is this. Plaintiffs/appellants are trespassers on plot No. E-424 measuring 25 sq. yards which stands in the name of Shri Ram Lal, S/o Shri Faqir Chand and plot No. E-425 is lying vacant and has been allotted to nobody. It was also pointed out that electric connection or ration card do not confer any title on the appellants with respect to the suit land.
The property in dispute previously vested with DDA, which was later transferred to MCD. Slum and JJ Department, MCD was subsequently arrayed as a party in this case. The MCD (Slum and JJ Department) has defended the present case. It is averred that the present suit is barred by the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. It is explained that proceedings were initiated against Sh. Richpal Singh, father of the appellants by the Estate Officer, eviction order was passed by him under Section 5(1) of PP Act and the plot had been got vacated from Sh. Richpal Singh. Thereafter, plot No. E-424 was allotted to one Smt. Shakuntla and plot No. E-425 was allotted to Smt. Bithi. It is alleged that the appellants are encroachers on the plot in question.
(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that appellants are in possession of the suit property since 1960. However, he did not pick up a conflict with the findings given by the courts below that appellants were able to prove that they were in possession of the suit property since 1987. Learned counsel for the appellants conceded that appellants are not in possession of documents pertaining to the year 1960 to 1987. He pointed out that the appellants have lost those documents. He also admitted that appellants are not in possession of allotment letter. He opined that appellants are poor people, they are not in possession of the record, consequently, it is the duty of the Government to produce the entire record. He pointed out that the appellants are not trespassers. He argued that appellants have settled possession and have better title than MCD and DDA or other allottees named by the respondents. He contended that under these circumstances, their possession should be protected.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.