- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Delhi Development Authority v. Khem Chand And Ors. S
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against concurrent judgments of the trial court (dated 9.2.2014) and the first appellate court (dated 26.3.2015). The courts below had decreed the suit of respondent nos. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) and restrained the appellant/DDA (defendant no. 1) from carrying out any demolition over the land of respondent nos. 1 to 3 situated in Khata Nos. 1019/150 and 1020/150 in Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi.
The principal contested issue was whether the respondent nos. 1 to 3 were in possession of acquired land situated in Khata No. 149 of Village Madanpur Khadar or in possession of different Khata numbers (1019/150 and 1020/150).
There was an earlier writ petition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 — Civil Writ Petition No. 4051/2003 — disposed of on 28.7.2003. That order recorded that the appellant could take action against the respondents only if the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 (Ex.PW1/9) was challenged and thereafter set aside by the competent revenue authority. The demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 (Ex.PW1/9) was prepared by a revenue official (Tehsildar/staff of the SDM). Demarcation proceedings were originally fixed for 14.5.2003 and carried out on 20.5.2003 in the presence of officials of the appellant, who did not sign the report due to asserted objections.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether respondent nos. 1 to 3 were in possession of acquired land situated in Khata No. 149 of Village Madanpur Khadar, or whether they were in possession of the lands reflected in Khata Nos. 1019/150 and 1020/150.
- Whether the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 (Ex.PW1/9) was legally valid where it was prepared using two fixed demarcation points instead of three, as the appellant contended was required by instructions to the revenue department.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant objected to the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 on the ground that relevant instructions required that three fixed points be taken before demarcation, whereas the report used only two fixed points.
- The appellant's officials present at the demarcation did not sign the report because they had objections; the appellant maintained those objections in the proceedings.
Respondent nos. 1 to 3's Arguments
- The demarcation report itself records that only two fixed demarcation points were available — an old bridge on the canal and the canal — and that other fixed reference points had been demolished by the appellant, leaving no other fixed points available.
- By virtue of the writ petition order dated 28.7.2003, action contrary to the demarcation report could be taken by the appellant only if the demarcation report were challenged and set aside by the competent revenue authority; the appellant did not take such steps.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the matter in the following sequence:
- It examined the earlier writ petition (CW 4051/2003) and its disposal on 28.7.2003, which made clear that the appellant's right to take action depended on first challenging the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 and having it set aside by the competent revenue authority.
- The court noted, and the lower courts had found, that the appellant did not take steps to challenge the demarcation report either before initiating demolition action or for more than ten years after the filing of the suit; therefore, the report had to be treated as final in the absence of any successful challenge by the appellant.
- The demarcation report (Ex.PW1/9) had been prepared by a revenue official (Tehsildar). Demarcation had been undertaken on 20.5.2003 in the presence of appellant officials who declined to sign because of objections, but the appellant never communicated in writing to the revenue officials or to the respondents what those specific objections were after preparation of the report.
- On the specific contention that the report was invalid because it relied on only two fixed demarcation points rather than three, the court reviewed the report's contents showing that the two fixed points used were the old bridge on the canal and the canal itself. The report also recorded that other fixed reference points were not available because they had been demolished by the appellant.
- The court observed that the appellant's written statement did not identify what three fixed demarcation points would have been available if the requirement for three points were met. The court considered it unreasonable to expect the revenue official to create a third fixed point when it did not exist, especially where the report recorded that other fixed points had already been demolished by the appellant to construct the Sarita Vihar colony.
- On these bases the court found no illegality or perversity in the demarcation report or in the conclusions reached by the courts below.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
The court dismissed the appellant's Regular Second Appeal, thereby upholding the concurrent judgments of the trial and first appellate courts which had decreed the plaintiffs' suit and restrained the DDA from carrying out demolition over the lands in question (Khata Nos. 1019/150 and 1020/150). The court concluded that no substantial question of law arises from the appeal.
Implications: The direct effect is that the restraint against demolition in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 3 remains in force and the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 stands in the absence of any successful challenge by the appellant. The opinion does not set out any broader precedent beyond affirming the conclusions of the courts below.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):— This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 9.2.2014 and the first appellate court dated 26.3.2015; by which the courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs and restrained the appellant/defendant no. 1.DDA from carrying out any demolition over the land of the respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs situated in Khata No. 1019/150 and 1020/150 in Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi.
2. The sole issue requiring decision between the parties was as to whether respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs were in possession of acquired land situated in Khata no. 149 of village Madanpur Khadar or the respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs were in possession of different Khata numbers being 1019/150 and 1020/150 Village Madanpur Khadar.
3. Admittedly, between the parties there was an earlier litigation being a writ petition which was filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs in this suit. This writ petition was Civil Writ Petition No. 4051/2003, certified copy Ex.PW1/10, and this writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.7.2003 observing that the appellant herein can only take action against the respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs in case the demarcation report already prepared (dated 20.5.2003, Ex.PW1/9 in this case) would be challenged by the appellant and thereafter set aside by the competent revenue authority. This order dated 28.7.2003 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4051/2003 reads as under:—
4. Present:
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CW 4051/2003 & CM No. 6936/2003
The petitioner had earlier filed the CW No. 3484/2002 which was disposed of on 23.05.2003 The petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition with liberty to approach the Revenue Authorities for appropriate relief.
The petitioner has again filed the writ petition seeking restrain order against the demolition. On a pointed query being raised to learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel states that the petitioner has no grievance in respect of report of the Revenue Authorities but the apprehension of the petitioner is that action may be taken against the petitioner contrary to the report of the Revenue Authorities.
In my considered view, the Revenue Authority having carried out the demarcation, no party is permitted to take action contrary to the said report until and unless the report is set aside before the competent Revenue Authorities. Thus in case the respondent has to take any action, the same shall be in accordance with the report of the Revenue Authorities. However, in case the respondent is aggrieved with the demarcation carried out, it is always open to the respondent to take appropriate steps to impugn the same in accordance with law and in case the respondent succeeds in the same, it can take action against the property thereafter in accordance with law.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
CM No. 6936/2003
No further orders are called for in this application in view of the disposal. Application stands disposed of.”
5. A reading of the aforesaid order leaves no manner of doubt that any right of the appellant to take action against respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs was if it challenged the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 Ex.PW1/9 and admittedly as the courts below note that before taking action against respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs for demolition the appellant took no steps to get the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 set aside. In fact, the trial court notes that even after filing of the suit, and for more than ten years till the suit was decided, appellant took no steps to challenge the demarcation report and therefore which has necessarily to be taken as final. I, accordingly, agree with this conclusion and findings of the courts below.
6. The demarcation report Ex.PW1/9 dated 20.5.2003 has been prepared by a government official being Revenue Official/Tehsildar (staff of SDM). Originally the demarcation proceedings were fixed on 14.5.2003, report Ex.PW1/7, and on which date all the parties including the appellant agreed that demarcation will take place on 20.5.2003 at 10:30 a.m The demarcation on 20.5.2003 was admittedly done in the presence of officials of the appellant but officials of the appellant did not sign the same because they had objections to the report. However, appellant never after preparation of the report dated 20.5.2003 ever stated by writing a letter either to the respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs or to the concerned revenue officials who carried out demarcation on 20.5.2003 that what were their objections to the report.
7. The objection which has been taken in the suit by the appellant for objecting to the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 is that the relevant instructions to the revenue department requires that before demarcation is done, three fixed points should be taken, but the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 is not prepared by taking three fixed demarcation points. To this aspect, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs have countered by referring to the contents of the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 that two demarcation points being an old bridge on the canal and secondly the canal was itself was taken before demarcation commenced. It is argued on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3.plaintiffs that the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 itself mentions that there is no other fixed point reference since other fixed points references were already demolished by the appellant itself and therefore no other fixed points were available except the two fixed points of the bridge of the canal and the Agra canal itself.
8. In this regard, I have gone through the written statement filed by the appellant and it is seen that in this written statement appellant itself does not state that if three fixed demarcation points were available then what were these three demarcation points. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no illegality in the demarcation report dated 20.5.2003 prepared by taking two fixed demarcation points because there were only two fixed points available. After all how could the revenue official create a third fixed demarcation point which did not exist, inasmuch as, all other fixed demarcation points were already demolished by the appellant in order to construct a colony called Sarita Vihar on the acquired land of Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi.
9. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find that any illegality or perversity is committed by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises.
10. Dismissed.
Alert