The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a second appeal challenging the Single-Judge order against the possession of government land by the appellants.
The Court observed, “Due to rampant encroachment, demarcation cannot be usually done in the manner as prescribed by law. Illegal occupants of such properties continue to enjoy prime government/public land without paying a single penny to the government for use and occupation.”
The plaintiffs/appellants have filed a suit for perpetual injunction before the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. The case of the plaintiffs was that they have been in possession as owners of land in the revenue estate of Humayunpur, New Delhi, since the time of their forefathers. The plaintiffs claim to have constructed a house on the land.
The suit was filed against the defendants on the ground that on May 8, 1984, the Respondent/Defendant- Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had threatened to demolish the construction of the house and asked the plaintiffs to hand it over the possession to DDA. Notably, in the plaint itself, the plaintiffs take the position that the area where the house is located, is not acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore the DDA does not have any right to demolish the construction over the suit property.
In the written statement, DDA alleged that the plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in the suit property and the intention of the plaintiffs was only to grab DDA’s land by unauthorizedly constructing their house on the same. DDA further contended that the plaintiffs could not have challenged the said acquisition by way of a civil suit as the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are in settled possession of the suit property and a permanent injunction is therefore, liable to be granted. This decision was appealed against by DDA. The appellate court dismissed the suit while observing that the plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership over the suit property. The same was challenged in the High Court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh on the question of the onus of the plaintiffs of proving their ownership of the suit property observed that it is well-settled that in cases of government land, there is a greater responsibility of Courts in ascertaining title of third parties. In fact, the plaintiff in such cases must establish his clear right, title and nature of possession in the property, superior to that of the Government authority and there is a presumption in favour of the Government.
“Thus, the Plaintiffs had a heavy onus to establish the following:
(i) That they had acquired the suit property through legally recognized documents such as registered sale deed, allotment from governmental authorities, etc. However, no such documents were produced by the Plaintiffs.
(ii) That the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property which falls in Khasra No 48/7 – this ought to have been established by positive evidence and not by an inference.
(iii) That the Plaintiffs had to rely on documents proved in accordance with law, even to establish possession – however, in this case, only some spattering revenue records which were marked and not even exhibited, were relied upon by the Plaintiffs,” the Court held.
The Court further observed that mere sporadic or stray entries in the revenue records cannot confer title, and the facts mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that there is any substantial question of law which deserves to be adjudicated upon in the present second appeal. In fact, from the evidence which has emerged from the record, it is clear that apart from some mention in khasra girdawaris, there are no other concrete documents which have been filed by the Plaintiff to discharge the heavy onus that is placed on him.
The Court is also conscious of the fact that the property in question is stated to be near a South Delhi Colony, adjacent to Safdarjung Enclave/Green Park and is very valuable. The plaintiff, who is in possession of a large part of this suit property, cannot continue to remain in possession, as permitting the same would be giving a premium to illegal encroachments and occupations on public land.
The Court noted that the present case is also another example of the ills that plague civil litigation in respect of government acquired land. The acquisition in this case dates back to 1961. The land was placed at the disposal of DDA in 1975. The suit in this case was filed in 1984 i.e., nine years later and was adjudicated upon by the Trial Court in 2011, i.e., more than 25 years later. The Appellate Court gave its decision in 2020. The DDA had taken an objection as to the maintainability of the suit itself, right at inception in its written statement. However, the suit had to go through the full journey of trial and final adjudication.
“In such cases, advantage is taken of the fact that due to rampant encroachment, demarcation cannot be usually done in the manner as prescribed by law. Illegal occupants of such properties continue to enjoy prime government/public land without paying a single penny to the government for use and occupation. As government authorities continue to defend against suits filed by such occupants, the public is deprived of the use and enjoyment of the said land which has been acquired for public purposes. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Trial Courts, to consider the maintainability of such suits at the initial stage in a manner that they deem appropriate, so as to ensure that such long delays do not take place, especially in respect of government land,” the order reads.