Delhi Development Authority v. Nand Singh (Deceased) through his L.R., Umesh Singh Bhati

1. After arguments, the facts and the issues which are crystallized are that in khasra No.21 of village Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi, there was a total land of 4 bighas and 19 biswas. Out of 4 bighas and 19 biswas, 3 bighas and 17 biswas were acquired by the Government vide Award No.1536 of 1963.

2. As per para 6 of the written statement of the appellant/defendant in the trial Court the remaining area of 1 bigha and 2 2014:DHC:1528 biswas of khasra No.21 was given numbers 21/2/2 and 21/1 and with respect to which the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was stated to have been issued. The written statement is silent and there is no evidence in the trial Court that this area of 1 bigha and 2 biswas of land was acquired at any time by the Government and thereafter placed at the disposal of the appellant/Delhi Development Authority under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act.

3. Before this court, learned counsel for the appellant argues that actually appellant is not in possession of entire 1 bigha and 2 biswas, but 1 bigha of land is in possession of Karizan Basti which/who or such owners of land are not parties to the suit and therefore the decree passed in the present case in favour of the respondent/plaintiff can be mis-utilized.

4. The fact of the matter is that the appellant who was defendant in the suit does not claim ownership rights in 1 bigha and 2 biswas of land situated in khasra No.21. Therefore, if the respondent/plaintiff will get a decree of injunction in the present suit, it will only be against the appellant and not against Karizan Basti inasmuch as a judgment in a civil suit is only binding inter parties or persons who claim through the parties. This is the law under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Therefore, if Karizan Basti or its occupants have any claim to 1 bigha and 2 biswas of land of khasra No.21, this judgment will not bind the occupants/owners of the said Karizan Basti and who are alleged by the appellant to be in possession of 1 bigha and 2 biswas of khasra No.21. I must hasten to add that the respondent/plaintiff contrarily claims to be the owner and in possession of the entire 1 bigha and 2 biswas and not only of 2 biswas as was the case of the appellant.

5. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in the present case will only be binding inter parties with respect to 1 bigha and 2 biswas of land of khara No.21 of village Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi and which have now been given two khasra numbers as 21/1 (2 biswas) and 21/2/2 (1 bigha). It is also clarified that this order is passed and impugned judgments are sustained assuming the fact that respondent/plaintiff is in fact sitting on 1 bigha and 2 biswas of land in khasra No.21 which are now numbered as 21/1 and 21/2/2. In case, the respondent/plaintiff is not physically at the spot in possession of any part of khasra No.21 being khasra No.21/1 and 21/2/2 i.e respondent/plaintiff is in possession of land located in a totally separate khasra number, then, it is clarified that nothing contained in today’s order or the impugned judgments affects any of the parties qua such land which does not fall in K.Nos. 21/1 and/or 21/2/2.

6. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

MARCH 20, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne