2011 (9) TMI 1098 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for declaration of title - mandatory and permanent injunction - The suit land belonged to Kishangarh and formed part of the revenue estate of that village. Appellant No.2 and his three brothers who claim to have purchased land comprised in khasra Nos.2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 total measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas from Om Prakash and Mahinder Pal (sons of Parma Nand) Tej Nath Tej Prakash Gokal Chand and Ram Dhan by registered sale deed dated 15.10.1963 encroached upon the suit land raised construction and started a restaurant under the name and style Sahara Restaurant . appellant No.2 - filed Suit for grant of permanent injunction against the Corporation and the DDA by asserting that he is the co-owner of house No.80 which forms part of khasra No.1674 and was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.1963; that the entire superstructure is in existence for last over 15 years; that he has been residing in the suit premises and is paying property tax since 1968-69; that the suit land has not been acquired; that the officials of the Corporation and the DDA came to the suit premises along with the Tahsildar on 10.8.1990 without serving any notice and threatened to demolish the superstructure on the ground that the same is unauthorized. According to appellant No.2 when he questioned the jurisdiction of the Corporation and the DDA to take action for demolition of the structures the officials went away with the threat that they will come again with the police force and demolish the same. HELD THAT - the appeal is dismissed by Apex court and approve the findings and conclusions recorded by the trial Court. On a comprehensive analysis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties the trial Court held that the plaintiffs (appellants herein) have succeeded in showing that appellant No.2 and his brothers had purchased land comprised in khasra Nos. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 but they could not prove that the land on which appellant No.1 was running Sahara Restaurant is a part of those khasra numbers or that they were otherwise in lawful possession of the suit land. The trial Court then held that the suit was barred by time because cause of action had accrued 16 years ago when the suit land was transferred to the DDA. The trial Court also held that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands inasmuch as they suppressed material facts relating to the vesting of the suit land in the Central Government and transfer thereof to the DDA and the documents like Aks Sijra site plan and demarcation report as also the facts relating to the acquisition of an area of 1512 square yards forming part of khasra No.2728/1674/3 and receipt of compensation at the rate of 50/- per square yard and held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC. The appellants who have not only made encroachment on the public land but also abused the process of the Court are saddled with cost.

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and possession of the suit land.
2. Legal right to file the suit.
3. Bar of limitation.
4. Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
5. Clean hands and equitable relief.
6. Vesting of suit land in the Central Government and transfer to DDA.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Possession of the Suit Land:
The appellants claimed ownership of the land in khasra Nos. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3, asserting they purchased it via registered sale deeds. However, the trial Court found that while they proved purchase of these khasra numbers, they failed to show that the land where they ran the "Sahara Restaurant" was part of these khasra numbers. The trial Court noted the absence of essential documents like demarcation reports and site plans, which could have established the exact location of the land. The High Court upheld this finding, agreeing that the appellants did not prove the land in question formed part of the khasra numbers they claimed.

2. Legal Right to File the Suit:
The trial Court concluded that the appellants had no legal right to file the suit as they were mere encroachers on government land. The land initially belonged to Gaon Sabha and vested in the Central Government upon urbanization of the village, subsequently transferred to DDA. The appellants' claim of ownership was dismissed as they failed to prove their title over the land.

3. Bar of Limitation:
The suit was found to be barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period from when the right to sue first accrues. The trial Court and the High Court determined that the cause of action first accrued in December 1990 when the DDA filed a written statement asserting the land vested in the Central Government and was transferred to DDA. The suit filed in 2000 was thus beyond the limitation period.

4. Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC:
The trial Court held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC, as the appellants had not included all their claims in the earlier suits they filed. This procedural bar was an additional ground for dismissing the suit.

5. Clean Hands and Equitable Relief:
The courts found that the appellants did not approach the Court with clean hands. They withheld crucial documents and misrepresented facts. They also raised illegal constructions despite an injunction order. The trial Court emphasized that no injunction could be granted against a true owner, and since the appellants were encroachers, they were not entitled to any relief.

6. Vesting of Suit Land in the Central Government and Transfer to DDA:
The courts consistently held that upon urbanization of the village, the land vested in the Central Government by virtue of Section 150(3) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and was subsequently transferred to DDA under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The appellants' contention that the land did not belong to Gaon Sabha was rejected, and it was affirmed that the land was validly vested and transferred.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming the findings of the lower courts that the appellants had no legal right to the suit land, the suit was barred by limitation, and the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands. The appellants were also ordered to pay costs amounting to Rs. 5 lacs, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the Delhi State Legal Services Committee.

← Previous Next →