V.K. Shali, J. - (1.)THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 07.04.2008 passed in RCA No. 123/05. The first appellant court upheld the judgment/decree dated 01.04.2005 passed by the trial court by virtue of which the suit no. 0373/85 was decreed in favour of respondent/ plaintiff.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/DDA claiming ownership of the suit property being property measuring 45' X 20' (2 Biswa) forming part of Khasra No. 1275 in the village Tughlakabad. It was alleged in the plaint that on 29.04.1985 the DDA and its officials illegally started to demolish the suit property which was averted by timely intervention of the respectable person of locality. It was prayed in the aforesaid suit that the DDA and its officials be restrained from demolishing the suit property or in any way dispossessing or interfering with the possession of the respondent/plaintiff illegally and forcibly other than by due process of law.
The aforesaid stand of the respondent/plaintiff was vehemently contested by the appellant/DDA on the grounds that the suit land was an acquired land by virtue of Award No. 50 -A, supplementary/ 1969 -70 and the physical possession of the land was taken over on 28.05.1985 and thereafter vide notification dated 01.06.1985 the same was placed at the disposal of the DDA. Therefore the respondent/plaintiff had no title, right interest in the suit property. Further the maintainability of the suit was challenged before the trial court.

(3.)THE learned trial court held that the defendants have failed to prove their case and that the respondent/plaintiff is in legal possession of the suit property passed a decree in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff vide order dated 01.04.2005. Subsequently DDA filed an appeal along with an application under S. 5 of the Limitations Act 1963 with a prayer for condonation of delay of 127 days. Vide order dated 07.04.2008 the ld. appellate court dismissed the application for condonation of delay while giving concurrent finding to the effect that the appellant/DDA had failed to prove that the physical possession of the suit property vested with it which is the pre requisite for a land to be an acquired land as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore the appeal was held bereft of any merit.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.