Delhi Development Authority v. Ranjit Singh

1. This petition challenges an order dated 17.8.2013 which in turn dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against the order of Civil Judge dated 14.12.2012. The plaintiff’s-respondent’s case in the suit was that he was in physical possession of the suit land admeasuring one bigha eleven biswas with dimensions of 75 feet x 185 feet forming part of Khasra No.495 situated in Mehrauli Village, Delhi. The petitioner had admitted to a program for demolition at about 11.00 am on 10.2.2008 of the four rooms constructed therein and contended that it was encroachment upon the Government acquired land. An interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was granted against the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge took into consideration the fact that the plaintiff 2014:DHC:634 CM(M) No.106/2014 was in possession of the suit property. Whether the suit property was part of Khasra No.495 – the said acquired land, was a disputed question which would need to be adjudicated through trial. That the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was deemed in his favour. The Court found that irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if the interim injunction was not granted. The balance of convenience was found in favour of the plaintiff. The impugned order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for the same reasons on which the interim order was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Having considered the above as well as arguments of counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the issue of whether the suit property formed a part of Khasra No.495 was still to be determined and that this could be done only through a trial. The view taken both by the learned Civil Judge as well as in the Appellate Court is a plausible view in law. There is no infirmity in either of the orders. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being without merit.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) JANUARY 31, 2014