Khatri Hotels P.Ltd.& Anr vs Union Of India & Anr

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.22126 of 2009)

Khatri Hotels Private Limited and another ... Appellants

Versus

Union of India and another ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal for setting aside judgment dated 21.8.2009 of the

learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court whereby he dismissed the

appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by

Additional District Judge-13 (Central), Delhi (hereinafter described as, `the

trial Court') in a suit for declaration of title, mandatory and permanent

injunction filed by them.

2

3. The suit land belonged to Gaon Sabha of village Kishangarh and

formed part of the revenue estate of that village. By notification dated

28.5.1966 issued under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation

Act, 1957 (for short, `the DMC Act'), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

(for short, `the Corporation'), with the previous approval of the Central

Government, declared that the localities mentioned in the Schedule forming

part of the rural areas shall cease to be the rural areas. The area of village

Kishangarh (Mehrauli) was shown at serial No.37 under the heading "South

Zone Delhi". As a consequence of this and by virtue of Section 150(3) of

the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short, `the Land Reforms Act'), the

suit land stood automatically vested in the Central Government. After 8

years, the same was transferred by the Central Government to the Delhi

Development Authority (for short, `the DDA') vide notification dated

20.8.1974 issued under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957

(for short, `the DD Act') for the purpose of development and maintenance as

Green. The relevant portions of that notification are extracted below:

"MINISTRY OF WORKS & HOUSING

New Delhi, the 20th August, 1974

S.O. 2190 - - - Whereas the terms and conditions

upon which nazul lands specified in the schedule annexed

below will be taken over by the Delhi Development Authority

3

have been agreed upon between the Central Government and

the Authority.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act,

1957 (61 of 1957), the Central Government hereby places with

immediate effect, the lands which had vested in the Central

Government on the urbanization of the villages specified in the

said Schedule at the disposal of the Delhi Development

Authority for the purpose of development and maintenance of

the said lands as green and for taking such steps as may be

required to serve the said purpose, subject to the condition that

the Delhi Development Authority shall not make, or cause, or

permit to be made any constructions on the said lands and shall

when required by the Central Government so to do, replace the

said lands or any portion thereof as may be so required, at the

disposal of the Central Government.

SCHEDULE

___________________________________________________

Sr.No.

Na me of the Village

17. Mehrauli (Kishangarh)

(F.No.13021/370-II)

S. CHAUDHARY

Jt. Secy."

4. Appellant No.2-Lal Chand and his three brothers, namely, S/Shri Ran

Singh, Dhannu and Surat Singh, 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),

4

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".

5. With a view to secure judicial approval of the illegal occupation of the

suit land, appellant No.2 - Lal Chand filed Suit No. 2576/1990 in the Delhi

High Court for grant of permanent injunction against the Corporation and

the DDA by asserting that he is the co-owner of house No.80, Ward No.IX,

Kishangarh, Mehrauli, which forms part of khasra No.1674 and was

purchased vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.1963; that the suit premises

comprise of 3 rooms and one hall surrounded by a boundary wall; 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.

5

Paragraph 10 of the plaint and prayer (a), which have bearing on the

decision of this appeal are reproduced below:

"10. That the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff

against the defendants on 10.8.1990 when the officials of the

defendants came to the suit premises and threatened to

demolish the same. The cause of action is continuing till the

threat of the defendants to demolish the suit property persists."

Prayer

"(a) That a decree of permanent injunction be granted in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the

defendants, their officers, servants, representatives and agents

from dispossessing, interfering in the possession of the plaintiff

and from demolishing or sealing, any part of existing structure

at House No.80, Ward IX, Kishan Garh, Mehrauli New Delhi

more particularly shown red in the plan annexed to the plaint."

6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the DDA, it was averred

that the suit land belonged to Gaon Sabha and with the urbanization of rural

areas of Kishangarh, the same automatically vested in the Central

Government. It was further averred that vide notification dated 20.8.1974,

the Central Government had transferred the suit land to the DDA and the

plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the same. The relevant portions of

the written statement are extracted below:

"PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. That the suit as filed is false, frivolous and not

maintainable. The plaintiff has no legal right to file the present

suit. The land forms a part of Khasra No.1674 of Village-

6

Mehrauli. This land belong to the Gram Sabha and on the

urbanization of Village-Mehrauli, all the Gram Sabha land

vested in the Central Govt. and the Central Govt., later

transferred this land at the disposal of the defendant-D.D.A.

vide notification No.S.O. 2190 dated 20.8.1974. Therefore, it is

clear that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the

property. In this view of the matter, this suit may be dismissed.

PARAWISE REPLY ON MERITS.

1. That the contents of para-1 are wrong and denied. It is

denied that the plaintiff is a co-owner of the premises

commonly known as House No.80, Ward-IX, Kishan Garh,

Mehrauli, New Delhi forming part of Khasra No.1674. It is

further denied that the plaintiff purchased the suit property vide

sale deed dated 10.10.63. It is submitted that as per the sale

deed dated 10.10.65 supplied by the plaintiff, the suit land

forms a part of Khasra No.1674 of Village-Mehrauli. The Sale

deed is in respect of Khasra No.2728/1674/2(3-3) and

2728/1674/3(1-1) of Village-Mehrauli. Both these Khasras are

a part of the Gram Sabha land. On the urbanization of Village-

Mehrauli (Kishangarh), all the Gram Sabha land vested in the

Central Govt. and later on the Central Government transferred

this Gram Sabha land at the disposal of DDA for maintenance

as green development vide notification No.S.O. 2190 dated

20.8.1974. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has no right

or title in the land. It is further submitted that, recently the

plaintiff has unauthorisedly occupied this land and constructed

a boundary wall on it with 3 temporary rooms. It is submitted

that the plaintiff has not annexed any site-plan to the plant, as

alleged by him.

2. That the contents of para 2 are wrong and hence denied.

It is submitted that the construction of the suit land is recent and

unauthorized. It is denied that the superstructure over the suit

land has been in existence for the last 15 years. It is further

denied that the tin shed and 2 rooms over the land were

constructed sometime in the year 1959-60.

7

4. That the contents of para-4 are again wrong and therefore

denied. It is submitted that the suit land belongs to the DDA. It

is further submitted that previously, the land formed a part of

Khasra No.2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3, which was a part of

the Gram Sabha land. At the time of urbanization of Village-

Mehrauli, the Gram Sabha land vested in the Central Govt. and

later, the Central Govt. transferred this Gram Sabha land at the

disposal of D.D.A. vide notification No.S.O.2190 dated

20.8.1974. It is submitted that there is no requirement of any

acquisition proceedings in respect of this land, the land being at

the disposal of defendant-D.D.A. In this view of the matter it is

submitted that, no notification for acquisition need be issued. It

is further submitted that as the land does not belong to the

plaintiff, he is not entitled to be given any compensation

whatsoever."

7. On 20.8.1990, the High Court granted interim injunction, which was

confirmed vide order dated 14.7.1998. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to

District Judge, Delhi, who assigned the same to Civil Judge, Delhi for

disposal. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the Civil Judge

framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is co-owner of H.No.80,

Kishangarh, Mehrauli (part of Kh. No. 1674) as alleged in para

1 of the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is in occupation of the suit premises

for the last 15 years as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff has any legal right to file the

present suit? OPP.

4. Whether the suit is barred under Sections 477/478 of the

DMC Act? OPD.

8

5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD.

6. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try

the present suit? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?

OPP.

8. Relief."

8. Appellant No.2 did not appear in the witness box. Instead, one of his

sons, namely, Vinod Kumar Khatri gave evidence as PW-2 in the capacity of

the power of attorney. Two other witnesses examined in favour of the suit

were Prem Prakash (PW-1) from the office of Kanungo and Shri Kulwant

Singh (PW-3), Assistant Zonal Inspector. On behalf of the DDA, Prem

Chand (Tehsildar) was examined as DW-1, Constable Prabhu Singh of

Police Station Vasant Kunj was examined as DW-2 and Khem Chand

(Patwari) as DW-3.

9. After considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced

by them, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide judgment dated

3.3.2003 by observing that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he and his

brothers were owners of the suit land. The learned Civil Judge also held

that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief of injunction because the suit filed

9

for determination of title of the disputed land was pending adjudication.

The findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge on issue Nos. 3, 6 and 7

read as under:

"12. Issue No.3,6 and 7:- All these issues being connected

together are discussed together. PW1 has proved the khasra

girdawari but it may be mentioned that khasra girdawari is not

the document of title. Even these khasra girdawari are for the

year 1957-59, which are prior to the urbanization of vill. Kishan

Garh and same also shows that the land is shamlat land. DW1

deposed that vill. Kishan Garh was urbanized vide notification

ExDW1/2 and land was placed at the disposal of DDA vide

notification ExDW1/1. Nothing material has come out of the

cross examination of DW1. DW3 is another Patwari from

Halka Mehrauli who also deposed that as per khasrra paimaish

it is the document of title the land belongs to gaon sabha and

same has been transferred to DDA. He proved the certified

copy of record as ExDW3/1 which also shows that the land

belongs to the gaon sabha and has been placed at the disposal of

DDA. PW2 who is the attorney of plaintiff himself has

admitted that in the correction of revenue record they have also

filed suit in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, there is

admission on the part of plaintiff himself that at present in the

revenue record the plaintiff or his predecessor interest have no

right title and the land belongs to the gaon sabha which has

been transferred to DDA. Nothing material has come out of the

cross examination of DW3 and merely because the user of the

land has been shown as gair mumkin pahar and gair mumkin

abadi does not make much difference as the main controversy is

regarding the ownership that the land belongs to the gaon sabha

and as such plaintiff has failed to prove his right, title over the

same. There is also a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in

Rajender Kakkar v. DDA CW No. 3355/93 it is also for the

village Kishan Garh in the revenue estate of Mehrauli in that

judgment also the Hon'ble High Court has held that whole of

vill. Kishan Garh was urbanized and after urbanization as per

sec. 150 of DLR Act the land whole of gaon sabha ceases to be

the rural area and the land belongs to gaon sabha in vill. Kishan

1

Garh vested with the Central Govt. and the Central govt. vide

notification dt. 20.8.74 placed same at the disposal of DDA. In

this authoritative pronouncement also the Hon'ble High Court

held that petitioners have no right title over the land and it was

further held that :

`Time has now come where the society and the law

abiding citizens are being held to ransom by persons who

have no respect of law. The wheels of justice grind

slowly and the violators of law are seeking to the

advantage of the laws delays. That is why they insist on

the letter of the law being complied with by the

respondents while at the same time showing their

complete contempt for the laws themselves. Should there

not be a change in the judicial approach or thinking when

dealing with such problems which have increased in

recent years viz., large scale encroachment on public land

and unauthorized construction thereon, most of which

could not have taken place without such encroachers

getting blessing or tacit approval from the powers that be

including the municipal or the local employees. Should

the courts give protection to violators of the law? The

answer in our opinion must be in negative. Time has

come when the courts have to be satisfied, before they

interfere with the action taken or proposed to be taken by

the governmental authorities qua removal of

encroachment or sealing or demolishing unauthorized

construction specially when such construction like the

present, is commercial in nature.'

13. In the present case also the plaintiffs have failed to show

their right, title or interest over the land in dispute. In such

circumstances as the plaintiff has failed to show his legal right

over the land in dispute therefore, plaintiff is mere encroacher

upon the Govt. land. It seems that under the garb of present suit

the plaintiffs are indirectly challenging the notification by

which the village Kishan Garh was urbanized or land was

placed at the disposal of DDA. But it may be mentioned that

this court has no jurisdiction to try cases challenging Govt.

notification to place the land at the disposal of DDA.

1

14. Furthermore, the plaintiff has already filed suit in the

Hon'ble High Court challenging the entries in the revenue

records and therefore there is an admission on the part of the

plaintiff themselves that at present land is not shown in their

ownership. Question of suffering an irreparable loss or injury

does not arise as plaintiff is already pursuing legal remedy

available to them by challenging the revenue record. It is well

settled principle of law that no injunction can be grand against a

true owner. In the present case as the plaintiffs are mere

encroacher upon the DDA land as on todays date therefore they

are not entitled for any relief as prayed by them. As such, all

these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of

defendant."

10. RFA No.651 of 2003 filed by appellant No.2 was disposed of by the

Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 24.11.2008, the operative

portion of which reads as under:

"In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no

interference is called for as far as the impugned judgment and

decree is concerned, save and except to record that nothing

stated in the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.3.2003

pertaining to the issues of title would be construed as binding

between the parties; needless to state the title dispute would be

adjudicated in the suit filed by the appellant by the learned

Judge who is seized of the suit as per evidence before the

learned Judge and law applicable."

11. In the meanwhile, Surat Singh, one of the brothers of appellant No.2,

filed another suit for injunction against the Corporation and the DDA. He

claimed that he is the co-owner of land measuring 1200 square yards

1

forming part of khasra No. 1674, village Kishangarh. He pleaded that the

premises were surrounded by a boundary wall and till January 1991 the

same were being used for tethering cattle by one Ved Prakash. He alleged

that on 29.2.1992, the officials of the defendants came to the suit land with

large police force and illegally demolished number of premises including the

boundary wall of his property and on the next date, i.e., 1.3.1992, the

officials of the defendants again came and threatened to take forcible

possession of the property.

12. The suit of Shri Shri Surat Singh was dismissed by the Civil Judge

vide judgment dated 1.5.2004 with the findings that the suit land belonged to

Gaon Sabha and with the urbanization of the rural area of the village the

same automatically vested in the Central Government and that the plaintiff

encroached the same. The appeal filed by Surat Singh was dismissed by

Additional District Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 5.8.2004. The lower

appellate Court held that as per Khatoni Paimaish Exhibit DW1/2, the suit

land was a waste land being Gairmumkin Pahar and the same belonged to

Gaon Sabha and that after vesting of the land in it, the Central Government

had transferred the same to the DDA. Paragraph 6 of that judgment is

reproduced below:

1

"6. the Appellant claims himself the coowner of the land,

forming part of the khasra no.1674, Village Kishangar on the

basis of the Sale Deed dated 10.10.1963. A photocopy of the

Sale Deed was placed on the record by the Appellant through

which the Appellant along with the others claims to have

purchased 4 bighas and 4 biswas of land bearing Khasra

No.2728/167/4 and 2728/167/3. As per the scheme of the Delhi

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the DLR Act) on coming

into the force of the DLR Act the proprietor of the agricultural

land seized to exist. If any land was the part of the holding of a

proprietor, he became the Bhumidar of it, if it was the part of

the holding of some other person, such as a tenant or sub-tenant

etc. he became either a Bhumidar or an Asami whereupon the

rights of the proprietor in that land ceased. The land which was

not holding of either of the proprietor or any other person

vested in Gaon Sabha. A perusal of Kahatoni Paimaish,

Ex.DW1/2 would show that the suit land was a waste land that

is Gairmumkin Pahar in Union of India v. Sher Singh & Ors. II

(1997) CLT 58, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India that except the land which for the time being comprised

the holding or a grove whether cultivable or otherwise, vests in

Gaon Sabha from the date of commencement of the Act. The

onus was on the appellant to show that the suit land was a part

of the holding or a grove and the predecessors of the appellant

had become a `Bhumidar' in respect of the suit land on coming

into force of the DLR Act. A notification dated 3.6.1977 was

issued by the government under Section 507 of the DMC Act

whereby, the area of Kishan Garh in the revenue estate of

Mehrauli was urbanized, consequently in accordance with the

provisions of Section 150(3) of DLR Act, the land which had

vested in Gaon Sabha came to vest in the Central Government

on urbanization of the village. The Central Government, vide

notification under Section 22(1) of the DD Act Dated 20.8.1974

(Ex DW1/1) had placed the entire land which had vested in the

Central Government, on the urbanization of the village

specified in the schedule, at the disposal of the DDA for the

purpose of development and maintenance of the said land.

Therefore, all land, including the suit land which had vested in

Gaon Sabha, came to vest in the Central Government and was

ultimately placed at the disposal of the DDA."

1

13. During the pendency of the aforementioned two suits, appellant No.1

which is said to have been incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in

1994-95 with Harbir Singh Khatri another son of Lal Chand as its Managing

Director and appellant No.2-Lal Chand filed third suit being Suit No.313 of

2000 (renumbered as Suit No.473 of 2004) for grant of a declaration that the

entries made in the revenue records in respect of land comprised in khasra

Nos.2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 situated in the revenue estate of

Mehrauli, village Mehrauli Kishangarh, Tehsil Mehrauli are wrong and

illegal. The appellants further prayed for grant of a decree of mandatory

injunction directing the respondents to correct the revenue record and enter

their names in the columns of ownership and possession. Another prayer

made by the appellants was for restraining the respondents, their servants

and agents from demolishing the superstructures and sealing or interfering

with their possession of the suit property or running of the restaurant.

14. In the written statement filed on behalf of the DDA, several objections

were taken to the maintainability of the suit including the following:

(i) The plaintiffs have not challenged notification dated 20.8.1974

vide which the Central Government transferred the suit land to

the DDA.

1

(ii) The suit was barred by limitation because the same has been

filed after 16 years of the accrual of cause of action.

(iii) The suit is barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(iv) The plaintiffs not only made encroachment on the suit land, but

also abused the process of Court by filing different suits.

On merits, it was pleaded that the suit land belonged to Gaon Sabha

and with the urbanization of village Kishangarh, the same automatically

vested in the Central Government. It was further pleaded that the appellants

do not have any right, title or interest in the suit land and they do not have

the locus to question the revenue entries. Another plea raised on behalf of

the DDA was that the suit was barred by limitation.

15. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following

issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff no.2 along with his brother is the

owner and in possession of suit land?

2. Whether the suit land is a government land as alleged in

para no.1 of the preliminary objections? If so, whether

the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground?

3. Whether the suit is within limitation?

1

4. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?

5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with

clean hands and are not entitled to the equitable relief of

injunction as stated in para VI of the preliminary

objections?

6. Whether the suit land is a government land was placed at

the disposal of the DDA under Section 22(1) of the DDA

vide notification dated 20.08.1974?

7. Relief."

16. 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

1

acquisition of an area of 1512 square yards forming part of khasra

No.2728/1674/3 and receipt of compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per

square yard. The trial Court returned affirmative finding on issue No.4 and

held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC.

17. The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the learned

Single Judge of the High Court, who relied upon the judgment of the

Division Bench in Rajinder Kakkar v. Delhi Development Authority 54

(1994) DLT 484 and held that with the issuance of notification under

Section 507, Gaon Sabha land of Kishangarh automatically vested in the

Central Government and transfer thereof to the DDA was valid. The learned

Single Judge also agreed with the trial Court that the suit was barred by

limitation and that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean

hands.

18. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellants extensively referred to the evidence produced by the parties to

show that the land in question was Shamlat Thok and argued that such land

does not vest in Gaon Sabha. Learned senior counsel further argued that the

notification issued under Section 507 of the DMC Act and the provision

1

contained in Section 150(3) of the Land Reforms Act have no bearing on the

appellants' case because the suit land did not belong to Gaon Sabha and the

trial Court and the High Court committed serious error by recording a

finding that the suit land automatically vested in the Central Government

and that the same was validly transferred to the DDA. Shri Rohtagi pointed

out that the suit land was owned by Smt. Kasturi widow of Jhuman Singh

and Rattan Lal son of Trikha Ram, who sold it to S/Shri Parma Nand, Tej

Nath, Tej Prakash, Gokal Chand and Ram Dhan by registered sale deed

dated 7.10.1959 and legal heirs of Parma Nand and other vendees sold the

same to appellant No.2 and his brothers vide sale deed dated 10.10.1963.

Learned senior counsel assailed the concurrent finding recorded by the trial

Court and the High Court on the issue of limitation and submitted that the

suit filed in the year 2000 was within time because the cause of action

accrued to the appellants for the first time in 1998 when they came to know

about the entries made in the revenue records in favour of the DDA. In

support of this argument, Shri Rohtagi relied upon the judgment of this

Court in Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan (1960) 2 SCR 253.

19. Shri Harin P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri

Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the DDA argued

1

that the concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court and the High Court

that land on which the appellants were running a restaurant does not form

part of khasra Nos. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 is a pure finding of fact

based on correct analysis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence

produced by them and the same does not call for interference under Article

136 of the Constitution. Shri Sharan submitted that the suit filed by the

appellants for declaration of title and injunction was rightly dismissed by the

trial Court because they had not produced any evidence to prove that the suit

land forms part of land purchased by appellant No.2 and his brothers. Shri

Sharan then argued that the suit filed in the year 2000 was barred by

limitation because the cause of action had accrued to the appellants on

10.8.1990 when the officials of the Corporation and the DDA are said to

have visited the suit premises and threatened to demolish the superstructure

and, in any case, the cause of action accrued to them in December 1990

when the written statement was filed on behalf of the DDA with a

categorical assertion that with the urbanisation of the rural areas of village

Kishangarh, the suit land automatically vested in the Central Government,

which transferred it to the DDA vide notification dated 20.8.1974. Learned

senior counsel lastly submitted that the appellants are not entitled to any

relief because they had not approached the Court with clean hands and

2

suppressed material facts and documents.

20. We shall first consider the question whether the suit filed by the

appellants on 14.2.2000 was within limitation and the contrary concurrent

finding recorded by the trial Court and the High Court is legally

unsustainable.

21. The Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, `the 1963 Act') prescribes time

limit for all conceivable suits, appeals etc. Section 2(j) of that Act defines

the expression "period of limitation" to mean the period of limitation

prescribed in the Schedule for suit, appeal or application. Section 3 lays

down that every suit instituted, appeal preferred or application made after

the prescribed period shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 4 to 24, be

dismissed even though limitation may not have been set up as a defence. If

a suit is not covered by any specific article, then it would fall within the

residuary article. In other words, the residuary article is applicable to every

kind of suit not otherwise provided for in the Schedule.

22. Article 58 of the 1963 Act, which has bearing on the decision of this

appeal, reads as under:

2

"THE SCHEDULE

PERIODS OF LIMITATION

[See sections 2(j) and 3]

FIRST DIVISION - SUITS

Description of suit Period of Time from which

limitation period begins to run

PART III - SUITS RELATING TO DECLARATIONS

58. To obtain any other Three years When the right to sue

declaration. first accrues."

23. Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (for short, `the 1908

Act') which was interpreted in the judgment relied upon by Shri Rohtagi

reads as under:

"Description of suit Period of Time from which

limitation period begins to run

120. Suit for which no

period of limitation is Six years When the right to

provided elsewhere in sue accrues."

this Schedule.

24. The differences which are discernible from the language of the above

reproduced two articles are:

2

(i) The period of limitation prescribed under Article 120 of the

1908 Act was six years whereas the period of limitation

prescribed under the 1963 Act is three years and,

(ii) Under Article 120 of the 1908 Act, the period of limitation

commenced when the right to sue accrues. As against this, the

period prescribed under Article 58 begins to run when the right

to sue first accrues.

25. Article 120 of the 1908 Act was interpreted by the Judicial Committee

in Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan AIR 1930 PC 270 and it was held:

"There can be no `right to sue' until there is an accrual of the

right asserted in the suit and its infringement, or at least, a clear

or unequivocal threat to infringe that right, by the defendant

against whom the suit is instituted."

26. The same view was reiterated in Annamalai Chettiar v. A.M.K.C.T.

Muthukaruppan Chettiar (1930) I.L.R. 8 Rang. 645 and Gobinda

Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh (1930-31) L.R. 58 I.A. 125. In

Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan (supra), the three-Judge Bench noticed the

earlier judgments and summed up the legal position in the following words:

"The right to sue under Article 120 of the 1908 Act accrues

when the defendant has clearly or unequivocally threatened to

infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit. Every

2

threat by a party to such a right, however ineffective or

innocuous it may be, cannot be considered to be a clear and

unequivocal threat so as to compel him to file a suit. Whether a

particular threat gives rise to a compulsory cause of action

depends upon the question whether that threat effectively

invades or jeopardizes the said right."

27. While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the legislature has

designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908

Act. The word `first' has been used between the words `sue' and `accrued'.

This would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the

period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first

accrues. To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give

rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond

the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first

accrued.

28. In the light of the above, it is to be seen as to when the right to sue

first accrued to the appellants. They have not controverted the fact that in the

written statement filed on behalf of the DDA in Suit No.2576 of 1990-Lal

Chand v. MCD and another, it was clearly averred that the suit land

belonged to Gaon Sabha and with the urbanisation of the rural areas of

village Kishangarh vide notification dated 28.5.1966 issued under Section

2 507 of the DMC Act, the same automatically vested in the Central

Government and that vide notification dated 20.8.1974 issued under Section

22(1) of the DD Act, the Central Government transferred the suit land to the

DDA for development and maintaining as Green. This shows that that the

right, if any, of the appellants over the suit land stood violated with the issue

of notification under Section 507 of the DMC Act and, in any case, with the

issue of notification under Section 22(1) of the DD Act. Even if the

appellants were to plead ignorance about the two notifications, it is

impossible to believe that they did not know about the violation of their so-

called right over the suit land despite the receipt of copy of the written

statement filed on behalf of the DDA in December, 1990. Therefore, the

cause of action will be deemed to have accrued to the appellants in

December, 1990 and the suit filed on 14.2.2000 was clearly barred by time.

29. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. Although,

paragraph 19 of Suit No. 303/2000 was cleverly drafted to convey an

impression that the right to sue accrued to the appellants in

November/December, 1998 when they learnt about the wrong recording of

entries in Khasra Girdawris/Revenue Records, but if the averments

contained in that paragraph are read in conjunction with the pleadings of the

2

earlier suits, falsity of the appellants' claim that the cause of action accrued

to them in November/December, 1998 is established beyond any doubt. In

the first suit filed by him, appellant No.2-Lal Chand had pleaded that the

cause of action accrued on 10.8.1990 when the officials of the respondents

came to the suit premises and threatened to demolish the same. In the second

suit filed by Surat Singh (brother of appellant No.2-Lal Chand), it was

claimed that the cause of action accrued on 29.2.1992 when the officials of

the respondents demolished the boundary wall of the property on the ground

that the same was Gaon Sabha land. The appellants have not explained

starking contradictions in the averments contained in three suits on the issue

of cause of action and in the absence of cogent explanation, it must be held

that the statement contained in paragraph 19 of Suit No.313 of 2000 was per

se false and, as a matter of fact, the cause of action had first accrued to the

appellants on 10.8.1990 when their so called right over the suit land was

unequivocally threatened by the respondents. Therefore, the suit filed by the

appellants on 14.2.2000 was clearly beyond the period of limitation of 3

years prescribed under Article 58 of the 1963 Act and was barred by time.

30. While considering the question whether the suit was barred by time,

the trial Court noticed the averments contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the

2

plaint that during the course of preparation of the trial of Suit No. 2576/1990

- Lal Chand v. MCD and another, the appellants applied for a copy of

Khasra Girdawaris of the suit land and they were shocked to learn that the

revenue records have been incorrectly maintained and they were neither

shown as owners/bhumidars nor in possession of the suit land, referred to

the pleadings of the suit filed by appellant No.2 - Lal Chand in 1990 and

observed:

"Therefore, as per the pleadings that the cause of action accrued

when according to plaintiff he applied for the copies of the

Khasra Nos which was in Nov.-Dec, 1998 during the course of

trial in the earlier suit.

This claim of the plaintiff however does not appear to be

factually correct. It is evident from the judgment dated

03.03.2003 that the detailed written statement had been filed by

the DDA before the Ld. Civil Judge when the suit filed by Lal

Chand Plaintiff No.2 on 18.08.1990 wherein the DDA had

specifically pleaded that the land form part of Khasra

No.2728/1674/2 & 2728/1674/3 situated in the revenue estate

of village Kishangarh, Teh Mehrauli, New Delhi and the

urbanization of village Mehrauli, all the Gaon Sabha land

vested in the central govt, but later on transferred this land at

the disposal of the defendant DDA for development and

maintenance as green, vide notification dated 20.08.1974 and

the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit land. It

was further pleaded that the plaintiff had wrongly and

unauthorizedly occupied the land and constructed the boundary

wall alongwith three temporary room which construction was

unauthorized and it was denied that the suit property existed for

the last 16 years. It is further evident from the said judgment

that after the plaintiff filed the replication continuing the

aforesaid issue were framed by the Ld. Civil Judge on

11.03.1997. This being so, it is unbelievable that the date of

2

knowledge by the plaintiff was of Nov-Dec, 1998. Rather the

plaintiffs were fully aware of the land being at the disposal of

the DDA from the proceeding in suit No.211/02/90 when the

DDA filed its written statement when the limitation started to

run more so as the plaintiff No.2 had also filed replication

continuing the aforesaid and therefore as per the provisions of

the limitation act, Article 58 of the schedule, challenging to the

same should have been made within the period of limitation

which is within 3 years from the date of knowledge and

limitation which has started running, it is not extended by the

plaintiff by obtaining certified copy or by giving notice to the

defendants. This suit which has been filed only on 11.02.2000

is clearly not within the period of limitation of 3 years from the

date when the DDA filed its written statement in suit

No.211/02/90 and the plaintiff No,2 is first assumed to have

acquired knowledge and in attempt to cover up this delay the

plaintiff is trying to falsely create the cause of action in Nov-

Dec, 1998 attributing the advantage as during the trial when he

applied for the copies of the revenue record despite the fact that

the period of limitation started to run when the written

statement was filed by DDA to which the plaintiff No.2 filed

replication pursuant to which the issue framed was, whether the

plaintiff has any legal rights to file the present suit. This being

the case, I hereby held that the present suit is clearly beyond the

period of limitation and I decide the issue No.3 against the

plaintiff."

(emphasis supplied)

31. The High Court agreed with the trial Court and held that the suit was

barred by time. The reasons assigned by the High Court for coming to this

conclusion are contained in paragraphs 38 to 45, which are extracted below:

"38. First suit filed by Lal Chand (Appellant no.2 in the

present proceedings), being suit (no. 2576 of 1990), was suit for

Injunction simplicitor. That suit was dismissed by judgment/

order dated 3.3.2001. As per findings given in that suit, the

2

Plaintiff was never the owner; the land was Government land;

the land vested in Central Government after issuance of

notification under Section 507 of DMC Act and thereafter, the

land was transferred to DDA.

39. Against dismissal of that Suit for Injunction, an appeal

bearing (No. RFA 651/2003) was filed and this Court disposed

of the Appeal, vide order dated 24th November 2008.

40. In that suit, it was alleged in plaint that;

"It was sometime in March 1990 that Tehsildar along

with officers of DDA came to the site of Plaintiff with

dispossession and demolition."

41. Now after 10 years, appellant being a co-owner, cannot

seek relief against alleged threat of demolition or dispossession

and present suit is clearly barred by limitation.

42. In that suit in written Statement, a specific plea was taken

by answering respondent herein, that land in question by virtue

of issuance of notification under Section 507 of DMC Act, on

urbanization, came to be vested with Union of India and

thereafter, transferred to answering respondent. Relevant

preliminary objection taken therein the written statement is as

under;

"That the suit as filed is false, frivolous and not

maintainable. The plaintiff has no legal right to file the

present suit. The land forms a part of Khasra no. 1674 of

Village- Mehrauli. This land belong to the Gram Sabha

and on the urbanization of village Mehrauli, all the Gram

Sabha land vested in the Central Government, later

transferred this land at the disposal of the defendant DDA

vide notification No. S.O. 2190 dated 208-1974.

Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has no right, title or

interest in the property. In this view of the matter, this

suit may be dismissed. "

43. It is also contended that second suit was filed by Surat

Singh, one of the co-owners. That was again a Suit for

2

Injunction, which was dismissed and against this, an appeal

(No. RCA No. 29/2004) was preferred before Additional

District Judge on 5th August 2004 and same was also

dismissed.

44. The appellate court, while dismissing the suit of Surat

Singh, referred to the pleadings made in the plaint,

"That on 29-2-1992, police officials along with the

officials of DDA visited the site and proceeded to

demolish inter alia the boundary wall of the disputed

land. Clearly, therefore, the cause of action had matured

and limitation, which necessarily commenced from the

date of the demolition of the premises."

45. That suit was filed in 1992 and surely, a subsequent suit

by another co-owner, cannot be maintained after a lapse of 8

years."

32. What is most surprising is that even though appellant No.2 - Lal

Chand was cited as the first witness in Suit No.303/2000 (renumbered as

473/2004), he did not step into the witness box. This appears to be a part of

calculated strategy. He knew that if he was to appear as a witness, it will not

be possible for him to explain the apparent contradictions in the pleadings of

the three suits on the issue of cause of action and falsity of the averments

contained in paragraph 19 in Suit No.303/2000 will be exposed. This is an

additional reason for holding that the trial Court and the High Court did not

commit any error by recording a conclusion that the suit was barred by

limitation.

3

33. The next question which requires consideration is whether the finding

recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2 is legally correct and the

High Court rightly declined to interfere with the same. The trial Court

adverted to the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them and

observed:

".... The plaintiff has not placed on record any document nor

has examined any witness to prove the location and boundaries

of the said land. It is unbelievable that sale of the immoveable

properties could have taken place without identification of the

property with regard to its location. As per existing practice all

such transactions of immoveable properties either bear the

complete details of the boundaries to assist location of the

property sold alongwith the site plan or is accompanied by aks-

shijra. However, in the present case this has not been done and

the plaintiff has not adduced in evidence to prove boundary of

the suit land. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid, I hold

that the plaintiff No.2 had purchased the land falling in Khasra

No. 2728/1674/2 & 2728/1674/3 but he has not been able to

prove the location of the said land comprising of Khasra No.

2728/1674/2 & 2728/1674/3. The plaintiff has further not been

able to connect the land over which the plaintiff No.1 is running

Sahara Restaurant to the land comprise in Khasra No.

2728/1674/2 & 2728/1674/3 of which the plaintiff No.2 and his

brother are stated to be the owners.

That the DDA has placed on record the complete area location

plan Ex.D2W1/4 to which there is no rebuttal. Only simply

suggestion has been given to the witness of the defendant that

the aforesaid plan is incorrect but the plaintiff has not placed on

record any other alternative plan which according to him, is

according to plan, therefore, in these circumstances I find no

reason to discard the aforesaid documents which shows that

Sahara Restaurant has been constructed in front of the

3

community centre No.1, Nursery School No.2 and Group

Housing Janta Flats - 952 on the road and is shown to be away

from abadi of village Kishangarh, Mehrauli, New Delhi.

Annexure-A of the award Ex.PW4/1 shows that Khasra

No.2728/1674 falls in old abadi of village Kishangarh and in

these circumstances it is not possible to believe that the

aforesaid khasra No.2728/1674 would be located away from the

main village abadi. There it appears that the plaintiff has

deliberately tried to create confusion with regard to the khasra

No.2728/1674 and as admitted, to show that the land on which

the Sahara Restaurant is constructed is bearing khasra No.

2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 which is no the case and

apparently it was for this reason that he has deliberately no

placed on record any site plan, aks-shijra, demarcation report

made in plan document to prove the khasra numbers.

In view of the above I hereby hold that the plaintiff has proved

that he has purchased the land falling in Khasra No.

2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 but has not been able to prove

that the land on which the plaintiff No.1 is running Sahara

Restaurant is comprise of Khasra No. 2728/1674/2 and

2728/1674/3 or that he is in legal possession of the suit land

over which the Sahara Restaurant is constructed."

(emphasis supplied)

The trial Court then proceeded to observe:

"Vide my above findings with regard to issue No.1, I have

already held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove hat the

land on which a large restaurant is made falls in Khasra No.

2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 and that in fact Khasra No.

2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 is a part of old abadi which is

situated at distance and away from the place where the Sahara

Restaurant is constructed. The notification u/s. 22(1) of the

DDA dated 20.8.1974 which is Ex.DWW1/2 is not disputed by

both the parties. Firstly the plaintiff has not produced any

3

document in the form of demarcation report or aks-shijra which

show that the land on which Sahara Restaurant is situated false

in Khasra No. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 and is same land

which has been purchased by the plaintiff No.2. The sale deed

so relied upon by the plaintiff is Ex.PW3/4 does not show the

boundaries and identification of the land initially sold by Ratan

Singh and Kasturi Devi so purchased by the plaintiff No.2 later

vide Ex.PW3/3. Secondly no explanation is forthcoming with

regard to the acquisition award/proceedings placed before this

court which are Ex.PW4/1, showing that Khasra No.1673

min(0-12) and Khasra No. 2728/1674/3 min plus 2(14-14) then

the area of 1512 sq. yards has been acquired with the rte of

claim as Rs.50/- per sq. yard and the compensation is awarded

at Rs.1,55,600/- in all which is in respect of acquisition of land

of Ran Singh, Dhan Singh, Lal Chand, Suraj Singh all sons of

Mam Raj as shown in sl. No.66..............Annexure-A to the

award Ex.PW4/1 shows Khasra No. 2728/1674 to be falling in

old village abadi and no explanation is forthcoming as to how

the land on which Sahara Restaurant has been constructed is

situated away from the Abadi which according to Dx.D2W1/4

is constructed on the road in front of the Group Housing Janta

Flats-952, Nursery School-II and community center-I. It is

unbelievable that khasra No.2728/1674 which falls in old

village abadi can be situated away from the said award.

Fourthly, in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff No.2 in the year

1990 before Ld. Civil Judge the plaintiff No.2 had claimed that

he is in possession of two rooms and tin shed which he is using

for residential purpose and no explanation is forthcoming as to

how this huge construction of a big restaurant was made which

is being used by the plaintiff No.1 for commercial purposes. It

is evident from the order dated 24.11.2008 in RFA No.651/03

that the High Court was apprised of the earlier report of the

local commissioner in suit No.211/02/90 and the large scale

construction raised by the plaintiff over the said land despite the

status quo order without the sanction of the municipal authority.

Even otherwise no permission can be granted by the DDA for

any been uncontroverted by the plaintiff, has constructed

restaurant by encroaching upon the govt. land meant for road.

Under the garb of the present suit the plaintiff are indirectly

challenging notification by which village Kishangarh was

3

urbanized and the land was placed at the disposal of the DDA

without specifically challenging the same as the entries made in

the revenue record are only pursuant to the said notification.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, I hereby decide this issue

No.2 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants."

(emphasis supplied)

34. Though, the High Court did not examine the issue in detail as was

done by the trial Court, the learned Single Judge did make a note of the two

notifications, the judgment in Rajinder Kakkar's case and held that by

virtue of Section 150(3) of the Land Reforms Act, the suit land

automatically vested in the Central Government and the same was

transferred to the DDA under Section 22(1) of the DD Act. In our view, the

conclusion recorded by the trial Court that the appellants have failed to

prove that the suit land formed part of khasra Nos. 2728/1674/2 and

2728/1674/3 does not suffer from any error because they did not adduce any

evidence to establish that the land on which restaurant was being run formed

part of those khasra numbers.

35. We also approve the findings and conclusions recorded by the trial

Court that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands

inasmuch as they withheld Aks Sijra, site plan and the demarcation report

and award Exhibit PW4/1. Not only this, they raised illegal construction

3

despite the injunction order passed by the High Court and that too without

obtaining permission from the competent authority.

36. In view of the above discussion, we do not consider it necessary to

deal with the question whether the suit filed by the appellants was barred by

Order II Rule 2 CPC.

37. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants, who have not

only made encroachment on the public land, but also abused the process of

the Court are saddled with cost, which is quantified at Rs.5 lacs. Of this,

Rs.2.5 lacs be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

within two months from today. The balance amount of Rs.2.5 lacs be

deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Committee within the same

period. If the appellants fail to deposit the cost, the Secretaries of the two

Legal Services Committees shall be entitled to recover the same as arrears of

land revenue.

.............................J.

[G.S. Singhvi]

..............................J.

[H.L. Dattu]

New Delhi

September 09, 2011.