Delhi Development Authority Vs. Vakil Singh

Delhi Development Authority vs Vakil Singh

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Delhi Decided Aug 28, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/699184

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/699184
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Aug 28, 2003
Case Number: RSA 39/1986
Subject: Property;Civil
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100--Second appeal--Concurrent findings--Interference under Section 100, CPC--Land acquisition--Plaintiff in possession of plot, though not owner thereof--Demolitation of superstructure existing on the plot and taking possession of the plot by DDA--No notice served on plaintiff--...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Sections 7, 8 , 30(1) and 31A; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4 and 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 100

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Delhi Development Authority

Advocate Rajesh Mahajan, Adv

Respondent

Vakil Singh

Advocate Nemo

Legal References

Acts: Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Sections 7, 8 , 30(1) and 31A; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4 and 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 100
Reported In: 106(2003)DLT548; 2004(72)DRJ101; 2003RLR106

Excerpt

civil procedure code, 1908 - section 100--second appeal--concurrent findings--interference under section 100, cpc--land acquisition--plaintiff in possession of plot, though not owner thereof--demolitation of superstructure existing on the plot and taking possession of the plot by dda--no notice served on plaintiff--non-compliance with provisions of s. 30 of the delhi development act--dda restrained from taking possession of the plot or demolition of superstructure--first appellate concurring with findings of trial court decreeing suit in favor of plaintiff--no interference by high court in second appeal with the concurrent findings of fact under section 100, cpc--delhi development act, 1957, sections 7, 8, 30--land acquisition act, 1894, sections 4, 6. - - the suit was also laid to be bad for non-joinder of uoi. 4. whether the suit is bad for the non-joinder of the union of india?r.s. sodhi, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th october, 1985, of the additional district judge, delhi in rca no. 87/83, whereby the learned judge has affirmed the findings of fact and law of the learned sub judge, delhi. 2. the brief facts of the case as noted by the additional district judge are as follows : ' ... that the respondent/plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction on the averments that he is the owner in possession of the plot of land -2- rsa 39/1986 measuring about 425 sq. yard situated in khasra no. 32/1/l in village vasant nagar, delhi with super structure built over it (hereinafter referred to as the property in suit). it bears municipal no. 179 a/1 and 201 and the same is assessed to house tax. there is no notification u/s 12 that the property falls in development area. it is also not covered by any master plan or zonal plan u/s 7 and 8 of delhi development act. the super structure on the plot is old one. the plaintiff was not served with any order for removal of the super structure u/s 30(1) of d.d. act 1957. even if there is an order of direction of demolition, the same is null and void because no notice u/s 30(1) of d.d. act was served on the plaintiff; that the provisions of section 30 of the act are not complied with. lastly, the administrator did not follow the procedure prescribed by the rules made on the behalf as laid down under section 31a of the act. the demolition was threatened on 16/2/74 forcing the plaintiff to bring the civil action. 3. the dda filed written statement raising the defense that the land in suit was part of khasra no. 32/1/l village vaset nagar. it was duly notified u/s 4 and 6 of land acquisition act and finally acquired through award no. 1879. the possession was also taken over by the government. the plaintiff is only a tress passer with no right, title or interest. the suit was also laid to be bad for non-joinder of uoi. 4. the ld. sub judge framed the following issues.....

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th October, 1985, of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 87/83, whereby the learned Judge has affirmed the findings of fact and law of the learned Sub Judge, Delhi.

2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional District Judge are as follows :

' ... that the respondent/plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction on the averments that he is the owner in possession of the plot of land

-2- RSA 39/1986

measuring about 425 sq. yard situated in Khasra No. 32/1/L in village Vasant Nagar, Delhi with super structure built over it (hereinafter referred to as the property in suit). It bears municipal No. 179 A/1 and 201 and the same is assessed to House Tax. There is no notification u/s 12 that the property falls in development area. It is also not covered by any master plan or zonal plan u/s 7 and 8 of Delhi Development Act. The super structure on the plot is old one. The plaintiff was not served with any order for removal of the super structure u/s 30(1) of D.D. Act 1957. Even if there is an order of direction of demolition, the same is null and void because no notice u/s 30(1) of D.D. Act was served on the plaintiff; that the provisions of section 30 of the Act are not complied with. Lastly, the administrator did not follow the procedure prescribed by the rules made on the behalf as laid down under section 31A of the Act. The demolition was threatened on 16/2/74 forcing the plaintiff to bring the civil action.

3. The DDA filed written statement raising the defense that the land in suit was part of khasra No. 32/1/L village Vaset Nagar. It was duly notified u/s 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act and finally acquired through Award No. 1879. The possession was also taken over by the Government. The plaintiff is only a tress passer with no right, title or interest. The suit was also laid to be bad for non-joinder of UOI.

4. The Ld. Sub Judge framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the disputed property is situated in khasra No. 32/1/L village Vasant Vihar?

-3- RSA 39/1986

2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP

3. Whether the suit land has been acquired? If so, its effect?

4. Whether the suit is bad for the non-joinder of the Union of India? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief?

6. Relief.

5. All the issues were answered in favor of the plaintiff except that he was not found to be the owner though in possession. The suit was, thereforee, decreed and DDA was permanently restrained from taking possession or demolishing super structure existing on the plot of land in khasra No. 32/1/IL Vasant Nagar otherwise than in due course of law.'

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment under challenge. The first Appellate Court on going through the judgment under challenge and re-appraising the evidence on record, has concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. There being concurrent findings of facts of courts below, the same cannot be disturbed in the

-4- RSA 39/1986

regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RSA 39/1986 is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2003 Same Parties Delhi Development Authority vs Vakil Singh Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Sections 7, 8 , 30(1) and 31A; ...

Property;Civil