Budh Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Budh Ram vs Delhi Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 30, 1992

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/699708

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/699708
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: P.N. Nag, J.
Decided On: Apr 30, 1992
Case Number: Civil Revision Appeal No. 51 of 1989
Subject: Property;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Budh Ram

Advocate P.K. Ahuja, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 151
Reported In: 1992(23)DRJ289

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes — an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed — then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

.....facie order of demolition passed by d.d.a. cannot be executed--petitioner--plaintiff at liberty to move trial court for temporary injunction.;there is no jurisdictional error and thereforee the revision petition is dismissed in liming.;however in the interest of justice, the fact remains that in case the land is transferred to the m.c.d. by the d.d.a., as alleged, then prima facie it appears that the order of demolition passed by d.d.a cannot be executed against the plaintiff. however, these observations which i am making are tentative and require consideration. the petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to move the trial court for temporary injunction seeking restraint against the d.d.a. from demolishing the property in dispute and in case such an application is filed within two weeks from today, the same will be decided by the trial court on merits expeditiously, preferably within one month thereafter and till the disposal of that application for temporary injunction i direct that the property in dispute be not demolished by the d.da. - .....this revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.10.1988 passed by shri a.s. yadav, sub judge first class, delhi. (2) brief relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit restraining the defendants from demolishing the three rooms in the premise's bearing municipal no. d-15 (now known as d-40), acharya niketan, patparganj, delhi-110051 by passing a decree for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the demolition order dated 6.5.1987 issued by the defendant may be declared null, void and illegal by passing a decree for declaration in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. in the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under section 151 of the code of civil procedure seeking decreeing the suit on the ground that the property in question has been transferred to the m.c.d. and hence d.d.a. has no jurisdiction over the suit properties. the trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the subsequent transfer of the area is immaterial and the suit could not be decreed simply because the area was alleged to have been transferred to the m.c.d. against this order,.....

Full Judgment

P.N. Nag, J.

(1) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.10.1988 passed by Shri A.S. Yadav, Sub Judge First Class, Delhi.

(2) Brief relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit restraining the defendants from demolishing the three rooms in the premise's bearing Municipal No. D-15 (now known as D-40), Acharya Niketan, Patparganj, Delhi-110051 by passing a decree for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the demolition order dated 6.5.1987 issued by the defendant may be declared null, void and illegal by passing a decree for declaration in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking decreeing the suit on the ground that the property in question has been transferred to the M.C.D. and hence D.D.A. has no jurisdiction over the suit properties. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the subsequent transfer of the area is immaterial and the suit could not be decreed simply because the area was alleged to have been transferred to the M.C.D. Against this order, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this revision petition.

(3) There is no jurisdictional error and thereforee the revision petition is dismissed in liming.

(4) However, in the interest of justice, the fact remains that in case the land is transferred to the M.C.D. by the D.D.A., as alleged, then prima facie it appears that the order of demolition passed by D.D.A. cannot be executed against the plainntiff. However, these observations which I am making are tentative and require consideration. The petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to move the trial court for temporary injunction seeking restraint against the D.D.A from demolishing the property in dispute and in case such an application is filed within two weeks from today, the same will be decided by the trial court on merits expeditiously, preferably within one month thereafter and till the disposal of that application for temporary in junction I direct that the property in dispute be not demolished by the D.D.A.

(5) A copy of this order be given dusty to counsel for the petitioner.