Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 1098 - SC - Indian LawsSuit 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.
|