Chandan Devi Kapoor v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 01.8.1998 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 17.1.1996 whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff had been dismissed. The appellant had filed a suit for injunction. Contention was that the plaintiff was the owner of 600 sq. yards of land purchased by her vide sale deed dated 17.8.1967. Vide another sale deed dated 24.4.1971 2 bighas of land (2000 sq. yards) has also been purchased by her. The defendant (DDA) was threatening 2010:DHC:6057 sq. yards of land which was owned by the plaintiff. Suit was accordingly filed.

2. Defence of the defendant was that the pursuant to suit proceedings i.e.in suit No.48/75 which was a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff the parties had compromised the matter and 2600 sq. yards of land held by plaintiff (600 sq. yards purchased by her vide sale deed dated17.8.1967 and 2000 sq. yards purchased by her vide sale deed dated 24.4.1971) had been taken over by the DDA and in lieu thereof an alternative plot of land measuring 200 sq. yards in Safdarjung had been allotted to her.

3. This contention was dealt with by the Civil Judge while disposing of issues no.2 and 3. The Court had placed reliance upon certain documents Ex.PW-1/D-1 is the allotment letter in respect of this alternative plot no.1-A/227 allotted to the plaintiff, Ex.PW-1/02 is the handing over memo of the said plot, Ex.PW-1/03 clearly mentioned that plot No.A-1/227 had been allotted to the plaintiff in lieu of 2600 sq. yards of land which was originally owned by the plaintiff. Suit of the plaintiff was accordingly dismissed.

4. This finding of the trial judge was endorsed in the impugned judgment.

5. The substantial questions of law has been formulated on page 19 of the body of the appeal; they are 10 in number; they inter alia read as follows: “i. Whether the relief can be granted to a party who is unable to prove his case on record or who is unable to produce the record, asked for by the Court? ii. Whether the judgment can be passed on written interference evidence? iv. Whether a property of any person can be taken away without following the due process of law as is enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India? v. Whether any property can be acquired without following the procedure as laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? vi. Whether a property can be said to be acquired when admittedly no acquisition had been made in respect of the said land? vii. Whether the Court can draw adverse inference from the evidence produced by the Appellant when no documentary evidence or evidence has been placed before the Court? viii. Whether the person can be dispossessed of the property when admittedly the person is in possession of the said property for the last 30 years as a owner of the property, without following the due process of law? ix. Whether the Courts below were justified in not allowing the Appeal of the Appellant when no evidence of any nature had been produced by the Respondents? x. Whether the denial of oral hearing is justified by the Appellate Court so as to deny the rightful/lawful claim of the Appellant?”

5. They all are fact based. Both the facts finding Courts have returned a concurrent finding thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Arguments addressed before this Court do not make out any substantial question of law. Appeal as also stay application is dismissed in limine.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. DECEMBER 14, 2010 nandan