IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Date of Reserve: July 22, 2008

Date of Order: July 30, 2008

CM(M) 853/2008

Jatav Sudhar Samiti (Regd.) and Ors. ... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta with
Mr. Swastik Singh, Advs.

Versus

DDA and Ors. ... Respondents

Through: Mr. Amit Mehra for
Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA
Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv. for
MCD Ms. Shikha Palsale for
Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Adv.for R.2 and
5
JUDGMENT:

1. By this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner has

challenged the validity of the order passed by Appellate Court in an appeal against the
order passed by Civil Judge on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. The facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner
claimed itself to be an association of villagers and filed a suit in respect of land
measuring 2,000 square yards alleging it to be part of Khasra No. 415, Village
Karkardooma. It is contended that this two bighas of land was being used as a cremation
ground and respondent/DDA was out to construct a road passing through this cremation
ground in order to show favour to the two hospital namely Deepak Memorial Hospital
and Shanti Bal Mukand Hospital falling on two sides of this land.

3. The Trial Court granted an interim injunction observing that prima facie the
possession of the association over this land was there and it was being used as cremation
ground as per the revenue record. In appeal, the Appellate Court came to conclusion that
the land falling in khasra no. 415 was acquired vide award no. 54/1970-71 and physical
possession of this land was taken. It was placed at disposal of DDA vide notification
dated 7.11.1975. Since the land had been acquired, possession taken, the Civil Court had
no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of the land. The Appellate Court also found
that the petitioners had no right, title or interest over the land. It, therefore, vacated the
injunction, hence this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

4. Copy of site plan and other documents have been filed by the petitioner. The site
plan would show that this 2,000 square yards of land falls on one of the main road of the
East Delhi namely Vikas Marg. It is sandwiched between two hospitals namely Shanti
Bal Mukand Hospital and Deepak Memorial Hospital. This area is highly urbanized and
no village is there nearby the land or surrounding the area. The documents filed by the
petitioner regarding cremation at this land shows that after 1995 no cremation has been
done at the alleged cremation ground.

5. DDA has submitted that the land in question does not fall in khasra no 415 as
claimed and it falls in khasra no. 511. DDA placed on record the award vide which the
land falling in khasra no.415 was acquired and possession taken.

6. The plaintiffs has filed khasra girdawari of the year 1949-50 wherein it is shown
that about two bighas of land falling in khasra nos. 415, 426 and 428 of Village
Karkardooma was a cremation ground. The award shows that entire land of khasra no.
415 including land of cremation ground was acquired for planned development of Delhi.
The record also shows that possession of this land was taken over after passing the award.
Thereafter, the land was placed at the disposal of DDA by ordinary gazette of Delhi vide
notifications dated 17.2.1973, 7.11.1975 and 9.2.1981.

7. In view of the fact that the revenue record of the land shows that land had been
acquired by the Government and compensation was also paid to their respective owners,
the Appellate Court below rightly came to conclusion that the Civil Court had no
jurisdiction to either issue injunctions or re- convey the land.

8. A property can be acquired and taken possession of as per law. Once procedure as
laid down by law is adopted by Government and property is acquired, thereafter the Civil
Court cannot entertain a suit in respect of the properties duly acquired by the
Government, nor an interim injunction can be granted. In this case the claim of the
possession of the plaintiff does not seem to be bonafide. After 1995 no cremation has
been done. The land is sandwiched among the hospital in thickly populated area. A
cremation ground normally is not situated within such thickly populated area. It is
normally situated at a distance
from the population. I find no merits in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

Sd./-
July 30, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.