TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Plaintiff fails to prove ownership of DDA land through sporadic revenue entries, HC dismisses perpetual injunction appeal</h1> <h3>Nathu Ram Versus D.D.A. and Ors.</h3> Nathu Ram Versus D.D.A. and Ors. - 2022:DHC:375 Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit property forms part of Khasra No. 48/7 or Khasra No. 48/5.2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in settled possession of the suit property.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of a perpetual injunction.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the suit property forms part of Khasra No. 48/7 or Khasra No. 48/5:The primary issue was the determination of the correct Khasra number for the suit property. The Plaintiffs claimed ownership of land in Khasra No. 48/7, while the Defendant, DDA, contended that the Plaintiffs were occupying land in Khasra No. 48/5, which had been acquired by the government. The Trial Court initially found in favor of the Plaintiffs, relying on the testimony of witnesses and revenue records indicating possession in Khasra No. 48/7. However, the Appellate Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that the Plaintiffs failed to provide concrete evidence, such as registered documents or continuous revenue records, to prove their claim. The Local Commissioner's report, which suggested the property was in Khasra No. 48/7, was not relied upon due to procedural deficiencies in the demarcation process.2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in settled possession of the suit property:The Plaintiffs claimed settled possession of the property, asserting long-term occupancy and construction on the land. The Trial Court initially accepted this claim, noting the absence of evidence from DDA to prove encroachment on Khasra No. 48/5. However, the Appellate Court found that the Plaintiffs did not meet the burden of proof required to establish ownership or continuous possession, as their evidence was largely based on unexhibited documents and sporadic entries in revenue records. The Court emphasized that mere possession or entries in revenue records do not confer title, especially against government land.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of a perpetual injunction:The Plaintiffs sought a perpetual injunction to prevent DDA from demolishing the construction on the suit property. The Trial Court granted this relief, citing the Plaintiffs' long-term possession and the lack of evidence from DDA regarding encroachment. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their ownership and the exact location of the property within Khasra No. 48/7. The Court reiterated that due process of law does not necessarily require a separate suit by the government for possession; a competent court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' suit suffices.Conclusion:The High Court, in the second appeal, upheld the Appellate Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence to establish ownership over government land. The Court noted the Plaintiffs' failure to provide legally recognized documents or continuous revenue records to substantiate their claims. It highlighted the need for vigilance in protecting public land from encroachments and clarified that the dismissal of a suit after a fair hearing satisfies the requirement of due process. The appeal was dismissed, allowing DDA to take appropriate legal steps regarding the property.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
