The single bench dismissed three regular second appeals, holding that the disputed facts regarding land acquisition and ownership were questions of fact previously adjudicated by lower courts. Since no substantial question of law arose, the appeals were not entertainable under Section 100 CPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
R.S.A. No.202/2008
Decided on : 13th May, 2016
BHAGMAL (DECEASED) THRU. LRS …… Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Dr. Harsh Pathak, Dr. Shailendra Sharma, Mr. Mohit Choubey & Mr. Siddhartha Shukla, Advocates.
Versus
UOI & ORS. …… Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Govt. pleader for R-1/UOI in RSA 202/2008. Mr. Ajay Verma, Senior standing counsel for the DDA with Ms. Kirti Parmar, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Ms. Malvika Trivedi & Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocates for NDMC/R-4. WITH + R.S.A. No. 203/2008
BHAGMAL (DECEASED) THRU. LRS …… Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Dr. Harsh Pathak, Dr. Shailendra Sharma, Mr. Mohit Choubey & Mr. Siddhartha Shukla, Advocates.
Versus
UOI & ORS. …… Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Govt. pleader for R-1/UOI in RSA 202/2008.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 1 of 22
Mr. Ajay Verma, Senior standing counsel for the DDA with Ms. Kirti Parmar, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Ms. Malvika Trivedi & Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocates for NDMC/R-4.
AND
+ R.S.A. No. 205/2008
BHAGMAL (DECEASED) THRU. LRS …… Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Dr. Harsh Pathak, Dr. Shailendra Sharma, Mr. Mohit Choubey & Mr. Siddhartha Shukla, Advocates. Versus UOI & ORS. …… Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Govt. pleader for R-1/UOI in RSA 202/2008. Mr. Ajay Verma, Senior standing counsel for the DDA with Ms. Kirti Parmar, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Ms. Malvika Trivedi & Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocates for NDMC/R-4.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 2 of 22
No.256/04/68 granting permanent injunction in favour of the appellant was set aside.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 3 of 22
further stated that the abadi land in Arakpur village was shown in Khasra Nos.85, 84, 90 and 92.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 4 of 22
owners were paid compensation and no objection was raised by any person including deceased appellant Bhagmal at any point of time. It was also averred that the suit land is not correctly identified by the appellant in the plaint. The respondent/DDA also filed its written statement reiterating that the deceased Bhagmal is trying to encroach upon the Government land in the garb of the present suit.
2. If issue No.1 is proved has the land been validly acquired by the defendants? OPD
3. Whether any valid notice under Section 80 CPC and Section 53-B of the DD Act, has been served upon the defendant. If so, to what effect? OPD
4. Whether the defendants No.2 & 3 can be sued as such? OPP
5. If issue No.4 is proved is the suit maintainable in the present form? OPD
6. If the suit is not property valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
7. Relief.”
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 5 of 22
adverse inference against the respondents on the basis of testimony of DW A-1 and held that as the said witness avoided the questions regarding exclusion or inclusion of abadi area of village Arakpur Bagh Mochi, the land which was left out from acquisition comprised of land falling in Khasra No.84, 85, 90 and 92 of which the appellant claimed the ownership and also partly decreed the suit restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession over 22 bighas of the suit land and the respondent/NDMC was directed to remove its temporary godown situated in 15/16 bighas of the suit land within one month. However, relief with respect to the remaining suit land was denied.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 6 of 22
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 7 of 22
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 8 of 22
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 9 of 22
area referred in Award No.28 which was dealt with separately. This area was also notified by Notification No.775 dated 21.12.1911 Ex. DRR-16.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 10 of 22
1908-09”. It has been compared with original Masawis.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 11 of 22
on 12 bighas of land in portion of khasra No.84 & 90 . Name of locality or village has not been mentioned. It is also not mentioned in which particular portion of khasra No.84 & 90 there exists encroachment if any. No site plan in this regard has been filed.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 12 of 22
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 13 of 22
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 14 of 22
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 15 of 22
“The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so, whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 16 of 22
applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of law.”
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 17 of 22
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 18 of 22
sought to be challenged is the acquisition which had taken place almost a century ago. Not only the land has been acquired by the Government of India but also the fact that it has built residential quarters at both the places which are known as colonies of Sarojini Nagar and Nanakpura for the benefit of the Government servants. All these facts make him believe that the appellants by hook or crook want a parcel of land to be retained which will benefit them because the land, even if it is 100 square yards, is worth crores of rupees being in the heart of South Delhi.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 19 of 22
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 20 of 22
the acquisition proceedings or not, is only a question of fact and not a question of law much less substantial question of law. In the light of this discussion, issue No.2 is also decided against the appellants.
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 21 of 22
V.K. SHALI, J. MAY 13, 2016 ‘AA’
R.S.A. No.202, 203, 205/2008 Page 22 of 22
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the raised questions regarding land acquisition and injunction are substantial questions of law.
Whether the appellants can protect settled possession against the Government owner.
Whether the plaintiffs have proved their legal rights to the disputed property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Limited vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company LimitedExplained¶134
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Limited vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited; AIR 1962 SC 1314 · Who else cites this
Bhagmal (Deceased) Thru. LRS
Union of India & Ors.
V.K. Shali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
