Pritinker Diwaker, J. - (1.) Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pande for the petitioners through video conference link provided to them. Shri Hare Ram Tripathi for the State and Shri Aditya Bhushan Singhal for the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in brevity 'NOIDA), Gautam Budh Nagar appeared in person.
(2.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the validity of order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the Special Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (respondent no.3), whereby, direction has been issued for sealing the premises in question and the consequential order dated 20.07.2020 passed by Senior Manager, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Work Circle-3 (respondent no.4), whereby, the petitioners have been asked to vacate the premises.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners have instituted Original Suit no.33 of 2015 against Ram Niwas, Nauraj, Charan Singh, Randhir, Dinesh (all sons of Later Shri Ram Pat), Suresh, Mahesh, Vijay (all sons of late Veer Singh) and Smt. Roshni w/o late Veer Singh (all resident of Village Sadarpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar), Pawan Kumar s/o Late Hari Singh and Smt. Rashmi w/o Shri Naveen (both resident of Village Dadarpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar) and Noida Development Authority through its Executive Engineer. They were arrayed as defendant nos.1 to 12. The said suit was instituted alleging that defendant nos.1 to 11 have constructed residential building over plot no.S.D./A-1, area 338.25 Sq.mts. situated at Sector 45 NOIDA, Village Sadarpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. It was claimed that the sale deed in respect of aforesaid land was executed in their favour on 13.10.2011 and since then they are in possession over the disputed property. In the said suit, it is alleged that the land of defendant nos.1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as "defendants") were acquired by Government on 16.03.2011. The defendant nos.9 and 10 got a power of attorney executed in their favour from defendants. Thereafter registered lease deed was executed on 27.09.2011 by NOIDA in favour of defendant nos.1 to 8 through defendant nos.9 and 10. The power of attorney holders i.e. defendant nos.9 and 10, on the basis of lease deed dated 27.09.2011 and Power of Attorney dated 16.03.2011, executed sale deed dated 13.10.2011 of disputed property in favour of petitioners and it is claimed that the petitioners are in possession over the said property since then. It has also been claimed that after the transfer of possession, permission to raise construction has also been obtained from NOIDA. The defendants had also filed Original Suit no.1303 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar, assailing the Power of Attorney dated 16.03.2011 and lease deed dated 27.09.2011. In this backdrop, the petitioners also preferred the aforesaid Original Suit no.33/2015 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession and title of the appellants and not to take any step for demolition of construction raised thereon and also from evicting petitioners from property in dispute without following procedure prescribed in law. Meanwhile, the NOIDA had also cancelled the lease deed dated 27.09.2011. Consequently, the suit was amended and a declaration was sought that the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the NOIDA is void and further declaration has been sought with regard to title of petitioners on the property in dispute that they are valid lease holders and owner and in possession over property in dispute. The petitioners in the said suit moved an application seeking ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., which was rejected vide order dated 06.12.2016 and 07.12.2016 and the same has also been assailed before this Court in First Appeal From Order no.466/2017 (Dr. Ashok Mishra and others vs. Ram Niwas and others). The Appellate Court has proceeded to frame three points for determination and adjudication, the same are as follows:- "I. Whether plaintiff-appellants have shown any prima facie case and Trial Court has erred in law in holding otherwise? II. Whether balance of convenience and irreparable loss lay in favour of appellants? III. Whether Trial Court has rightly declined to grant ad interim injunction to appellants" Finally, the aforementioned F.A.F.O. was dismissed by judgement and order dated 15.02.2018. The relevant are extracted below:- "37. In the present case, we are not examining the question about validity of registration of Power of Attorney but reason as to why we have noticed the above provisions is that Power of Attorney though required optional registration, but, in the present case, as a matter of fact, it is claimed to have been registered. This is probably for the purpose of generating better confidence for subsequent transaction(s). However, then we find that Executants are all residents of Village Sadarpur; the person in whose favour it was executed belong to Village Sadarpur of District Gautam Budha Nagar (U.P.); the Witnesses are residents of Village Sadarpur; Power of Attorney is claimed to have been executed on 16th March, 2011 but on the same day it was interestingly registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Surajpur, District Sarguja (State of Chhatisgarh), a place about more than 1000 kms. from Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.). 38. We really failed to understand how all these persons could execute the document in State of Chhatisgarh when all are residents of Sadarpur in Gautam Buddha Nagar (U.P.) and in any case it did not satisfy requirements of Section 33(1)(a). This act of registration in State of Chhatisgarh raises a serious doubt over genuineness of aforesaid document. Since this issue is directly involved in the suit in question as well as original suit no.758 of 2013 filed by defendants Ram Niwas and others, we are refraining ourselves from expressing any final opinion in the matter but are satisfied that even though property in question is in possession of Appellants in view of sale deed they have got executed through Power of Attorney Holders i.e. respondents 9 and 10, but the very authority of these Power-of-Attorney Holders is under serious cloud and the document, prima facie, lacks genuineness, therefore, it cannot be said that here is a case where Appellants have shown a prima facie case in their favour. 39. We, therefore, answer point for determination I against appellants. 40. Now, coming to points for determination II and III, which we propose to answer together, it is true that balance of convenience and irreparable loss lie in favour of the Appellants for the reason that they are in possession over property in dispute, construction is also standing thereon but in order to grant ad interim injunction, all the three conditions are mandatorily required to be satisfied i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of appellants. As we have discussed above that in the present case very first requirement is lacking, hence grant of ad interim injunction to appellants is not justified and has rightly been rejected by Court below. We answer both the points II and III accordingly holding that Trial Court has rightly declined to grant ad interim injunction to appellants. 41. In view of thereof, we find no fault on the part of Court below in declining to grant ad interim injunction in favour of appellants. 42. The appeal lacks merit. Dismissed. 43. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 44. We further direct that since in the present case issues raised in Original Suit No.758 of 2013 are also involved in the Suit No.33 of 2015, wherefrom present First Appeal From Order has arisen, and parties are broadly also common, therefore, Court below shall consolidate both the suits and proceed to decide the same expeditiously, together, in accordance with law." ;