CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 1 of 39

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision:20

th

May, 2025

+ CS(OS) 339/2022 & I.A. 9113/2022

MATA AMRITANANDMAYI MATH THROUGH AUTHORIZED

REPRESENTATIVE OM PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

AMRITAPURI, P.O. KOLLAM, KERALA .....Plaintiff

Through:

versus

ANIL KUMAR JAIN & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv., Mr. Om

Prakash, Adv., Mr. Ashok Malik,

Adv., Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Adv.,

Ms. Swati Mishra, Ms. Nayoleeka

Purty, Mr. Samrat Pasriccha, Adv. for

D-1 to 5.

Mr. Charan S. Verma, Mr. Ramnesh

Verma & Mr. Chiranjeev Singh,

Advocates for D-2 and D-3.

+ CS(OS) 340/2022 & I.A. 9117/2022

ANIL KUMAR JAIN .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate

versus

MATA AMRITANANDAMAYI MATH & ORS.

.....Defendants

Through: Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv., Mr. Om

Prakash, Adv., Mr. Ashok Malik,

Adv., Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Adv.,

Ms. Swati Mishra, Ms. Nayoleeka

Purty, Mr. Samrat Pasriccha, Adv. for

D-1 to 5.

+ CS(OS) 793/2022 & I.A. 21290/2022

ANIL KUMAR JAIN .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate

versus

MATA AMRITANANDMAYI MATH & ANR.

.....Defendants

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 2 of 39

Through: Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv., Mr. Om

Prakash, Adv., Mr. Ashok Malik,

Adv., Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Adv.,

Ms. Swati Mishra, Ms. Nayoleeka

Purty, Mr. Samrat Pasriccha, Adv. for

D-1 to 5.

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

I.A. 9117/2022 in CS(OS) 340/2022

1. This application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has been filed by the plaintiff seeking interim

injunction for restraining defendant nos. 1 to 4 from entering into the land

admeasuring 504 sq. yards falling in Mustatil 29, Killa No. 17/2/2, situated

in Village Mehrauli, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi [‘suit land’] and making any

further construction or destroying any part of the suit land including but not

limited to the wall of the suit land, and alienating, encumbering, transferring

or disturbing the status of the suit land.

2. The applicant/plaintiff has further sought an order for bringing down

the illegal wall constructed by defendant nos. 1 to 4 to the extent of the same

having been illegally constructed on the suit land, as the same has

completely blocked the plaintiff’s ingress and egress to the suit land.

3. The applicant/plaintiff has further sought an order thereby granting

the entry/access to the suit land to the plaintiff.

Facts

4. The facts as stated in the plaint as well as in the captioned application,

which are relevant for the adjudication of the present application are stated

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 3 of 39

as under: -

5. The plaintiff claims ownership of the land admeasuring 504 sq. yards

falling in Mustatil 29, Killa No. 17/2/2, situated in Village Mehrauli, New

Delhi [Khasra No. 17/2/2’]. It is stated that the plaintiff along with one Mr.

Mahesh Kaushik i.e., defendant no. 5 herein purchased the land

admeasuring 1 Bigha (1008 sq. yards), Mustatil 29, Khasra No. 17/2/2

situated in Village Mehrauli, New Delhi [‘the land’] vide a registered sale

deed dated 19.01.1998 executed by one Mrs. Gayatri Devi in their favour.

The land was bought by the plaintiff jointly with Mr. Mahesh Kaushik

i.e., defendant no. 5 herein and was thereafter mutually partitioned between

them in two (2) equal shares of 504 sq. yards with each parcel of the land

having direct front access from the internal road known as Mata

Amritanandamayi Marg [‘the Mata Marg’]. The plaintiff claims to be the

absolute owner and in exclusive possession of its share in 504 sq. yds.

falling in Khasra No. 17/2/2 i.e., the suit land.

5.1. It is stated in the plaint that the present suit has been filed seeking a

decree of possession of the ‘front portion’ [being 150 sq. yards approx.] of

the suit land, which has been encroached by defendant nos. 1 to 4. During

the pendency of these proceedings the area in dispute was measured and the

plaintiff submitted that the actual area encroached upon by defendant nos. 1

to 4 is 92 sq. yards [‘area in dispute’]. In this regard, the plaintiff filed

1

a

fresh site plan prepared by a draughtman duly identifying the disputed area

admeasuring 92 sq. yards.

5.2. It is stated that the plaintiff herein, who is an Overseas Citizen of

India (‘OCI’) having citizenship of United States of America is an absolute

1

Filed under index dated 03.10.2024 [e-diary no. 43219939/2024]

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 4 of 39

co-owner and is in possession of the suit land. He states that the plaintiff

purchased the suit land vide a registered sale deed dated 19.01.1998 and

thus, has been in the settled possession of the suit land since 1998.

5.3. It is stated that Mata Amritanandamayi Math (‘MAM’) i.e., defendant

no. 1 herein is an international charitable trust having one of its branch in

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi behind the suit land. It is stated that defendant no. 2

is the trustee of defendant no. 1 trust, whereas, defendant nos. 3 and 4 are

members/associates of defendant no. 1.

5.4. It is stated that defendant no. 5 is a performa defendant and no relief

has been claimed against him.

5.5. It is stated that defendant no. 6 is Shanti Kunj Resident Welfare

Association (‘RWA’), which has been formed with an objective to seek

regularization of this colony – known as Shanti Kunj. It is stated that the suit

land is located in Shanti Kunj Colony. It is stated that the RWA has

submitted a layout plan along with list of its plot owners to the Urban

Development Department of GNCTD, wherein all the plots have been

identified. It is stated that the plaintiff’s plot falls in D-Block and has been

allotted private number D-1 in this layout plan submitted to the Government.

The certificate dated 12.04.2022, the statement of Secretary of the RWA

dated 25.04.2022, the extract of the layout plan submitted by RWA to

GNCTD vide letter dated 28.12.2010 has been relied upon to show the

location of the plaintiff’s plot vis-à-vis the internal road/the Mata Marg of

D-Block. It is stated that all the plots in Shanti Kunj have been allotted

private numbers in the said layout plan and residents and owners use the said

private numbers as their addresses and for identification. This layout plan

has been duly uploaded on the official website of Urban Development

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 5 of 39

Department of GNCTD.

5.6. It is stated that after the purchase of the suit land in the year 1998, the

plaintiff had constructed a room and a boundary wall with a gate, for

passage over his area on the suit land and since then no change has been

made by the plaintiff in the suit land.

5.7. It is stated that on or about 08.04.2022 and 09.04.2022, defendant nos.

3 and 4 along with 6-7 accomplices illegally trespassed and broke open the

lock of the gate installed at the suit land. It is stated that the said persons

thereafter, demolished the wall on which the gate was installed, removed the

gate and they re-constructed the new wall. It is stated that defendant nos. 3

and 4 have then illegally constructed a new boundary wall thereby

unlawfully merging an area admeasuring 92 sq. yards approx. [i.e. area in

dispute] of the suit land with the adjoining property of defendant no. 1.

5.8. It is stated that in the layout plan submitted by the RWA to GNCTD

the plaintiff’s plot has been given the number D-1 and defendant no. 1’s plot

has been given the number D-3 and D-23. The illegal merging by defendant

no. 1 is with respect to plot no. D-23 with portion of plot no. D-1.

5.9. It is stated that by this illegal action, the defendant nos. 1 to 4 have

blocked the entry of plaintiff’s plot no. D-1 from the internal road/ the Mata

Marg. Since this was the only access to plot no. D-1, the said plot has

become land-locked and the area of the suit land stands reduced from 504

sq. yards. to 462 sq. yards.

5.10. It is stated that in these circumstances, the plaintiff first approached

the police and has also been constrained to file the present suit seeking

possession of the land measuring 92 sq. yards of the suit land and a decree

of permanent injunction to restrain defendant nos. 1 to 4 from entering into

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 6 of 39

the suit land and from creating any third-party rights in the suit land.

5.11. It is stated that defendant no. 1 has also filed a Civil Suit bearing no.

CS SCJ 559/2022 titled as Mata Amritanandmayi Math v. Anil Kumar

Jain & Ors. [pending adjudication before Patiala House Courts, New Delhi]

seeking permanent injunction thereby restraining the plaintiff herein from

demolishing the wall constructed on the suit land and from dispossessing

defendant no. 1 herein [plaintiff therein] from the said suit land.

Submission on behalf of the plaintiff

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that vide Order dated

01.06.2022, the Court without going into the merits of the case, directed

defendant no. 1 to provide access to the plaintiff to the suit land from the

internal road/ the Mata Marg, as the plaintiff had prior to April, 2022 and the

parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land

comprised in Khasra No. 17/2/2.

6.1. He submitted that vide said Order, the Court had also directed the

concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (‘SDM’) to carry out the demarcation

of the subject land and to identify the land, which falls under Khasra No.

17/2/2 and Mr. Kamal Kumar, Advocate was appointed as the Local

Commissioner (‘LC’) to inspect the suit land.

6.2. He stated that even though the Local Commissioner had submitted its

report dated 21.06.2022, wherein the point of access, from where ingress

and egress to the suit land can be granted to the plaintiff, were clearly

pointed out, defendant nos. 1 to 4 did not grant access to the suit land to the

plaintiff.

Thus, the Court vide Order dated 02.08.2022 directed the Local

Commissioner to break the boundary wall and provide access to the

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 7 of 39

plaintiff. However, on 06.08.2022, upon an undertaking given by the

counsel that access will be provided to the plaintiff within 10 days, the Court

directed the Local Commissioner not to proceed with the commission in

terms of Order dated 02.08.2022.

6.3. He stated that it is an admitted position that the plaintiff purchased the

suit land in the year 1998 by way of a sale deed dated 19.01.1998 and

thereafter, the plaintiff had the land mutated in its favour in revenue records.

He states that all these records shows that the plaintiff is the owner and in

possession of the suit land with bounded wall and gate.

6.4. He stated that in the year 2010, RWA of Shanti Kunj colony had

submitted a Layout Plan of the colony to Urban Development Department of

GNCTD for regularization of the colony. He states that the said Layout plan

depicts the plot of the plaintiff as D-1. He states that defendant no. 1 had a

school already running in this colony in the year 2010 on plot no. D-3. He

stated that therefore defendant no. 1 has been aware about the location and

the access of plaintiff’s plot no. D-1 to the internal road/ the Mata Marg.

6.5. He stated that defendant no. 1 subsequently in the year 2021

purchased adjoining plot no. D-23 and it is thereafter the boundary wall

separating plot no. D-23 and D-1 has been illegally demolished by defendant

nos. 1 to 4 to encroach upon plot no. D-1. He states that the plot numbers

allotted in the Layout Plan are used by all the residents including defendant

no. 1. He has placed on record photographs of the plots with their

nameplates during the hearing dated 26.11.2024 to substantiates this plea.

6.6. He stated that defendant no. 1 had purchased the adjoining land in

Khasra No. 17/2/1 on 08.03.2021 and on 08.04.2022/09.04.2022, the

Plaintiff came to know that defendant nos. 3 and 4 are breaking the wall of

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 8 of 39

plaintiff’s land. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a police complaint for the

illegal acts of the defendants nos. 3 and 4; and the investigation was carried

out by ACP (Vigilance Cell).

6.7. He stated that police vide its report dated 22.06.2022 concluded that

the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since 1998 and after

demolishing the existing boundary wall as well as removing the iron gate of

the said plot, illegal construction of a boundary wall of the plot in question

has been done by one Mr. Ravindra Bhadana (Contractor) and one

Mr. Anoop Chavan (Liasoner). He stated that the ACP along with its report

has also filed AKS Shazra map, statement of the President of the RWA,

which substantiates the case of the plaintiff.

6.8. He stated that the demarcation report dated 01.08.2022 carried out by

the SDM cannot be relied upon as the same is not prepared as per extant

law. He states that the Mehrauli Village where the subject land is situated,

has already been urbanised by the Government vide notification dated

13.06.1962.

6.9. He stated that defendant nos. 1 to 4 have trespassed into plaintiff’s

land, which is also evident from the photographs placed on record.

6.10. He states that the first demarcation map dated 14.07.2021 prepared by

the Patwari on the demarcation application filed by the defendant on

24.06.2021, shows that the existing boundary wall did not cover the area of

92 sq. yards i.e., the area in dispute. The said area has been shown in red

colour in this map and fell outside the boundary walls existing as on

14.07.2021. He states that defendant nos. 1 to 4 altered the boundary wall

and in the process illegally demolished the plaintiff’s boundary wall and

encroached upon his plot no. D-1.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 9 of 39

6.11. He stated that defendant no. 1 herein in para 6 of the plaint in CS SCJ

559/2022, pending before the District Court has mentioned that the adjacent

land [i.e., land bearing number Mustatil 29 Khasra No. 17/1 and 17/2/1] was

covered by four side boundary walls, which is duly mentioned in revenue

record. And in para 6 of the said plaint, defendant no. 1 has mentioned that

the construction of the wall was very old and hence, defendant no. 1 herein

reconstructed/renovated the wall.

He stated that the newly constructed boundary wall on the adjacent

land (‘plot no. D-23’) is in Pentagon shape, meaning thereby that defendant

no. 1 has wrongly constructed the new wall on the Suit Land by illegally

encroaching on the 92 sq. yards of the front portion of the suit land, thereby

restricting plaintiff’s right of ingress and egress.

6.12. He stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this

Court be pleased to pass an order to make the interim order dated

01.06.2022 absolute and grant the ad-interim injunction in favour of the

plaintiff and against the defendant nos. 1 to 4.

Submission on behalf of defendant no. 1 to 4

7. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior counsel on behalf of defendant nos.

1 to 4 addressed submissions.

7.1. She stated that defendant no. 1 is the absolute owner as well as in

physical possession of the land measuring 01 Bigha (1008 sq. yards)

forming part of Khasra No. 29/17/2/2, situated in Village – Mehrauli (now

Tehsil Mehrauli), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

7.2. She stated that defendant no. 1 purchased (a) 600 sq. yards from Nova

Agency on 14.11.1994 by virtue of ATS dated 14.11.1994 and (b) 400 sq.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 10 of 39

yards from Zohra Fatima in the year 1997

2

.

7.3. She stated that the vendor, Mrs. Gayatri Devi had sold 200 sq. yards

to Ms. Zohra Fatima and 200 sq. yards to Mr. M.B. Pandey from Khasra no.

17/2/2 in the year 1994 itself. She stated that Mr. M.B. Pandey sold his 200

sq. yards to Ms. Zohra Fatima in the year 1996. She stated that in this

manner Ms. Zohra Fatima owned 400 sq. yards in Khasra no. 17/2/2

devolving from Mrs. Gayatri Devi. And, these 400 sq. yards has been sold to

defendant no. 1 in the year 1997.

7.4. She stated that originally Mrs. Gayatri Devi wife of Mr. Mahesh

Kaushik (i.e., proforma defendant no. 5) was the owner in possession of land

measuring 01 Bigha (20 Biswa) forming part of Khasra No. 29/17/2/2.

7.5. She stated that however, prior to the execution of the sale deed dated

19.01.1998 of 1008 Sq. yards situated in Khasra No. 29/17/2/2 in favour of

the plaintiff and defendant no. 5; the vendor Mrs. Gayatri Devi had already

sold 200 sq. yards to Ms. Zohra Fatima and 200 sq. yards to Mr. M B Pande

from Khasra no. 17/2/2, in the year 1994 itself. And, then Mr. M B Pandey

had sold his 200 sq. yards to Ms. Zohra Fatima in 1996.

7.6. She stated that Mrs. Gayatri Devi was left with 608 sq. yards in

Khasra no. 17/2/2 in 1998. She stated that therefore Mrs. Gayatri Devi could

not have sold 1008 sq. yards to the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 in the year

1998.

7.7. She stated that since the plaintiff started interfering in the peaceful

possession of defendant no. 1 over the suit land, defendant no. 1 filed the

Civil suit bearing no. CS SCJ No. 559/2022 before the Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi on 07.05.2022.

2

By way of GPA, SPA, Affidavit, Possession letter, ATS and Will, all dated 27.02.1997.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 11 of 39

7.8. She stated that defendant no. 1 had also filed CS(OS) 339/2022

[pending adjudication before this Court] seeking a declaration that the

registered sale deed dated 19.01.1998 executed in favour of the plaintiff and

performa defendant no. 5 by Mrs. Gayatri Devi qua the suit land is null and

void.

7.9. She stated that in terms of the interim order dated 01.06.2022, this

Court had directed the concerned SDM to carry out demarcation and

identification of Khasra No. 17/2/2 situated in Village Mehrauli, Vasant

Kunj, New Delhi.

7.10. She stated that the concerned SDM prepared a report dated

01.08.2022 and demarcation map dated 27.07.2022 in presence of the

parties, wherein Khasra No. 17/2/2 has been identified in green colour and

Khasra nos. 17/2/1 and 17/1 have been identified in orange colour. The said

demarcation map shows plaintiff’s land as ‘plot no. 1’ and land of defendant

no. 5 as ‘other building’ falling in Khasra no. 17/2/2.

7.11. She stated that the Khasra No. 17/2/1 is on the northern side of the

Khasra No. 17/2/2. The boundary wall partitioning the land of the plaintiff

and defendant no. 1 is shown in blue colour, which falls in Khasra no.

17/2/1. She stated that land in Khasra no. 17/2/1 exclusively belongs to

defendant no. 1 and the present suit only pertains to Khasra No. 17/2/2. The

land portion between the blue boundary wall and green kila line falls in

Khasra No. 17/2/1, which is in the unauthorised possession of the plaintiff.

7.12. She stated that the plaintiff neither has any right, title or interest on

any portion outside Khasra No. 17/2/2 and in portion of Khasra No. 17/2/1

nor has claimed any. She stated that defendant no. 1 is the exclusive owner

in possession of Khasra no. 17/2/1 in all respects even on the portion falling

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 12 of 39

outside boundary wall. Khasra no. 17/1 also belongs to defendant no. 1

which falls in the internal road/ the Mata Marg.

7.13. She stated that in view of the factual matrix which emerged from the

demarcation report and the demarcation map, the submission that the subject

suit property has been encroached and hindered by defendant nos. 1 to 4

herein is proved completely false, frivolous, and baseless. It is submitted

that the only motive of the plaintiff is to harass and grab the land of

defendant no. 1.

7.14. She stated that the AKS Shajra/revenue map shows Khasra No. 17/2/1

is on the northern side of Khasra No. 17/2/2. Khasra no. 17/2/2 has its

independent access to the internal road/ the Mata Marg on its eastern side.

7.15. She stated that as per the case of the plaintiff, the disputed portion

falls on the eastern side of his plot, thus the allegation of encroachment by

defendant no. 1 by merging the disputed portion of 92 sq. yards of the suit

property falling in Khasra No. 29/17/2/2 is a concocted story of the plaintiff.

7.16. She stated that the plaintiff’s version of plot nos. D-1, D-2, D-3 and

D-23 with reference to RWA map cannot be relied as it doesn't show

dimension, measurements or areas of plots in layout hence, it may be

presumed as a mere drawing. This is because, neither, the Layout Plan of the

society having D-1, D-2, nor, the registered sale deed dated 19.01.1998 nor,

the suit or any document thereof shows/clarifies any dimension whatsoever.

7.17. She stated that the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 are the joint owners of

the land bought under the registered sale deed dated 19.01.1998 and as per

the version of the plaintiff, they have direct front access to the internal road/

the Mata Marg. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot have any grievance against

defendant no. 1.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 13 of 39

7.18. She stated that since the plaintiff has not been able to make out any

case of encroachment, therefore, as per the settled law the present applicant

should be dismissed on merits.

Findings and Analysis

8. This Court has heard the counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

i. Plaintiff’s settled possession over the suit land admeasuring 504 Sq. Yds.

including the area in dispute [admeasuring 92 sq. yds.]

ii. Trespass by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 into Plot No. D-1 in April 2022

9. The dispute arising for consideration in this suit is an area of 92 sq.

yards, which was in settled possession of the plaintiff herein since 1998 and

has been encroached upon by defendant nos. 1 to 4 in April, 2022,

immediately prior to filing of this suit. The plaintiff has filed a site plan of

the suit land under the index dated 03.10.2024, wherein the encroached area

is marked in red and the remaining area is marked in yellow. The site plan is

as under: -

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 14 of 39

10. Before deciding this application, it would be relevant to refer to the

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa

Naidu

3

, wherein it was held as under: -

3

(2004) 1 SCC 769

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 15 of 39

“8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the person

in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order

to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep

out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully

dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully

and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in

settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the

rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the

law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his

possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and

settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using

force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in

possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law

of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use

of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior

peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes

the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any

property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from

an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or

is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in

nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not

have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the

possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as

one acquiesced to by the true owner.”

(Emphasis supplied)

11. In fact, the Supreme Court in Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha

Venkat Rao

4

as well held that a person, who is in settled possession of a

property, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain on the

property, cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by

recourse of law. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -

“8. Mr Tarkunde, learned counsel for Defendant 3, the appellant

herein, rightly did not go into the appreciation of the evidence either

by the trial court or the High Court or the factual conclusions drawn

by them. It was, however, strongly urged by him that the period of

licence had expired long back and the plaintiff was not entitled to the

renewal of licence. It was submitted by him that in view of the licence

4

(1989) 4 SCC 131

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 16 of 39

having come to an end, the plaintiff had no right to remain in charge

of the business or the premises where it was conducted and all that the

plaintiff could ask for was damages for unlawful dispossession even

on the footing of facts as found by the High Court. We find ourselves

totally unable to accept the submission of Mr Tarkunde. It is a well-

settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession

of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on

the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property

except by recourse to law. If any authority were needed for that

proposition, we could refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this

Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh [AIR 1968 SC

620: (1968) 2 SCR 203,208-210] . This Court in that judgment cited

with approval the well-known passage from the leading Privy Council

case of Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Narayan Roy [AIR

1924 PC 144: 51 IA 293, 299: 23 ALJ 76] where it has been observed

(p. 208):

“In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession;

they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through

a court.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12. In the aforenoted legal position, this Court now proceeds to examine

the facts in controversy.

13. The suit land/plot of the plaintiff and the adjoining land/plot of

defendant no. 1 lies in an unauthorized colony known as Shanti Kunj colony

having registration no. 83 as per GNCTD. Since this colony in the year 2010

to Urban Development Department of GNCTD had applied for

regularization, it prepared a Layout Plan [through an Architect] of all the

plots within the boundary of the colony. The Layout Plan firstly divided the

colony into blocks and further assigned plot numbers to identify each plot.

In this Layout Plan plaintiff’s plot has been assigned plot no. D-1, defendant

no. 1’s adjoining plot has been assigned plot no. D-23 and defendant no. 5’s

plot has been assigned plot no. D-2. The said Layout Plan is available on the

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 17 of 39

official website of GNCTD

5

.

14. It is a matter of record that the plot numbers assigned to each plot in

the Layout Plan are being used by the residents of this colony for

identification of their respective plots. Defendant no. 1, in addition to plot

no. D-23 owns plot no. D-3, where it has a branch which runs a school and

as is apparent from the Court record it uses the said plot no. D-3 as it’s

known address. In fact, since defendant no. 1 was a resident in the year

2010, defendant no. 1 is well aware about the submission of the aforesaid

Layout Plan to GNCTD. Similarly, the plaintiff as well uses plot no. D-1 as

its address.

15. Thus, for the sake of convenience and to bring clarity in the order, the

reference to suit land/plot of the plaintiff will be ‘plot no. D-1’; reference to

plots of defendant no. 1 will be ‘plot no. D-23’ and ‘plot no. D-3’

respectively; and reference to the plot of defendant no. 5 will be ‘plot no. D-

2’.

16. The issue arising for consideration in I.A. Nos. 9117/2022,

12628/2022 and 15245/2022 is whether the plaintiff is entitled to restoration

of the status quo of the suit land, as it existed immediately prior to April,

2022, when defendant nos. 1 to 4 unilaterally broke down the boundary wall

partitioning the plot nos. D-1 and D-23, and constructed a new boundary

wall, which has led to the only access of plaintiff’s plot no. D-1 from the

internal road/the Mata Marg, being cut off.

Defendant no. 1 broke down a part of the partitioning wall and

constructed a fresh wall and cordoned off an area admeasuring 92 Sq. Yds.,

which forms part of plot no. D-1 and merged this area with plot no. D-23.

5

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 18 of 39

17. The plaintiff has placed on record the registered sale deed dated

19.01.1998 whereby he along with defendant no. 5 had acquired title in an

area admeasuring 1008 sq. yards falling in Khasra no. 17/2/2 from the

vendor, Ms. Gayatri Devi (who is also stated to be wife of defendant no. 5).

The plaintiff and defendant no. 5 mutually partitioned the said land into two

(2) halves and these two (2) halves are now numbered as plot nos. D-1 and

D-2 respectively in the Layout Plan of this colony. Both these plots have

independent and direct access to the internal road/the Mata Marg.

It has come on record that plaintiff in 1998 constructed a boundary

wall for his plot along with a room for his caretaker and installed a gate on

the opening of the plot facing internal road/Mata Marg.

18. Defendant no. 1 is a charitable trust, which has a branch located at

plot no. D-3 and this fact is duly mentioned in the 2010 correspondence

between defendant no. 6/RWA and GNCTD.

19. The existence of plot nos. D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-23 on the Layout Plan

of the colony is therefore to the knowledge of the plaintiff, defendant nos. 1

and 5.

20. It appears from the record that on 08.03.2021, defendant no. 1

purchased plot no. D-23 from its owners. Plot no. D-23 abuts plot no. D-1

and infact shares a common boundary wall. It is apparent from the record

that plot no. D-23 had a pre-existing boundary wall bounding the plot, as on

08.03.2021, when it was purchased by defendant no. 1. So also, plaintiff’s

plot no. D-1 had an existing boundary wall as on 08.03.2021 along with a

room constructed for a caretaker. Thus, the partitioning wall between plot

no. D-23 and plot no. D-1 was existing on the site when defendant no. 1

purchased plot no. D-23 from its owners.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 19 of 39

21. Pertinently, though Shanti Kunj colony has a Layout Plan since 2010

which has been formally submitted to GNCTD where all plots have been

assigned individual plot numbers, defendant no. 1’s sale deeds dated

08.03.2021 pertaining to plot no. D-23, conspicuously neither refers to plot

no. D-23 and further fails to give details of plots on its boundaries,

especially east, west and south boundaries.

22. The relevant extract of the Layout Plan of Shanti Kunj Colony

submitted to GNCTD, as applicable to the suit plots is as under: -

23. Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 (‘Act of 1908’) mandates

that a non-testamentary document with respect to an immovable property

cannot be accepted for registration, in case the description of such property

for the purpose of identification of such property is not mentioned in the said

document. Section 21 of the Act of 1908 reads as under: -

“21. Description of property and maps or plans. — (1) No non-

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 20 of 39

testamentary document relating to immovable property shall be

accepted for registration unless it contains a description of such

property sufficient to identify the same.

(2) Houses in towns shall be described as situate on the north or other

side of the street or road (which should be specified) to which they

front, and by their existing and former occupancies, and by their

numbers if the houses in such street or road are numbered.

(3) Other houses and lands shall be described by their name, if any, and

as being in the territorial division in which they are situate, and by their

superficial contents, the roads and other properties on which they abut,

and their existing occupancies, and also, whenever it is practicable, by

reference to a Government map or survey.

(4) No non-testamentary document containing a map or plan of any

property comprised therein shall be accepted for registration unless it is

accompanied by a true copy of the map or plan, or, in case such

property is situate in several districts, by such number of true copies of

the map or plan as are equal to the number of such districts.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

24. To this effect the Guidelines

6

issued by the Department of Revenue,

Government of NCT of Delhi vide circular dated 12.11.2014 provides that if

an instrument pertains to an immovable property, the Sub-Registrar must

ensure strict compliance that the said property is clearly identified within the

instrument and the site plan is annexed to identify the property. The relevant

paragraphs of the guidelines read as under: -

“(2) PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENT :

The Sub-Registrar shall ensure strict compliance of the

parameters necessary for the presentation of the document viz.

…

(h) If the subject matter of the instrument is immovable

property, such property has been properly identified in the

instrument and the site plan is annexed to identify the

property.

...

(8) EXTENT OF ENQUIRY AS REGARD TITLE:

(i) Under the Indian Registration Act, no power has been

6

Guidelines issued under Section 69 of Indian Registration Act for compliance by all Sub-Registrar

Offices; available at http://it.delhigovt.nic.in/writereaddata/Cir20185159.pdf

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 21 of 39

conferred upon the registering authority to examine and

enquire into the title of the property. The Sub-Registrar is

not entitled to probe-in to the title as mentioned in the

instrument in as much as it is for the parties to examine,

ensure and verify the true character and title of the property

as subject matter of the instrument. The Sub-Registrar is to

ensure only that the executant or duly authorized person,

admit the execution of the instrument and if the subject

matter of the instrument is immovable property, such

property has been properly identified in the instrument

and is necessary the site plan is appended or annexed

separately to identify the immovable property.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

25. However, a perusal of the four (4) sale deeds dated 08.03.2021 relied

upon by defendant no. 1 qua purchase of plot no. D-23 falling in Khasra

Nos. 17/1 and 17/2/1 shows that in the schedule of the land [mentioned in

the sale deeds] no boundaries have been mentioned, whereas the layout plan

of the Shanti Kunj colony clearly enabled marking of these boundaries. So

also, no site plan of plot no. D-23 has been annexed with these sale deeds

executed in favour of defendant no. 1.

Plaintiff’s plot no. D-1 falls on the southern-eastern boundary of

defendant no. 1’s plot no. D-23. This is a material fact and if duly reflected

in the sale deeds dated 08.03.2021, would have estopped the defendant no. 1

from interfering in the settled possession of the plaintiff in plot no. D-1.

The absence of the boundary details is a serious defect in the sale

deeds of defendant no. 1 and they are in contravention of statutory provision

of the Act of 1908.

26. The Layout Plan of Shanti Kunj Colony was submitted by Secretary,

RWA/defendant No. 6 along with list of names of plot owners and size of

plots, which duly reflected the details of plot nos. D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-23.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 22 of 39

These documents have been set out in this judgment in subsequent

paragraphs.

27. The significance of boundaries in transfer documents pertaining to

immovable properties has been noted by Supreme Court in Ramisetty

Venkatanna and Another vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and Others

7

.

28. The Layout Plan of Shanti Kunj Colony and all other documents

submitted to GNCTD in year 2010 clearly reflected the settled possession of

the plaintiff in plot no. D-1.

29. It is pertinent to note that when defendant nos. 1 to 4 unauthorizedly

broke down the partition wall between plot no. D-1 and plot no. D-23 in

April, 2022, the plaintiff had immediately filed a police complaint of

trespass on 19.04.2022 with Police Station (P.S.) Vasant Vihar. The report

of the ACP, Public Grievance, South-West District dated 22.06.2022

confirms that defendant nos. 1 to 4 unilaterally and illegally broke the

boundary wall partitioning plaintiff’s plot no. D-1 and defendant no. 1’s plot

no. D-23 in April, 2022 and unauthorisedly removed the gate, which existed

on the boundary wall, giving access to the plaintiff into the plot no. D-1

from the internal road/ the Mata Marg.

The defendant nos. 1 to 4 after breaking the existing wall built a new

wall and cut off the plaintiff’s ingress egress to his plot from the internal

road/ Mata Marg. It also ended up arrogating to itself part of plot no. D-1,

which was in the settled possession of the plaintiff and wrongfully merged it

with plot no. D-23.

The conclusion in the report of the ACP is reproduced as under: -

“CONCLUSION:

7

2023 SCC OnLine 521 [Paragraph nos. 20 and 29]

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 23 of 39

After the detailed enquiry conducted into the matter it is

concluded that as per local enquiry it was revealed that plot in

question pertains to Dr. Anil Jain who have possession of plot since

1998. Dr. Anil Jain also produced copy of sale deed, Khatoni and

mutation of plot and the same were got verified from concerned

officials and found genuine. Illegal construction of boundary wall of

the plot in question was done by Ravinder Bhadana (Contractor) and

Anoop Chavan (Liaison person between the Contractor and Math)

after demolishing the boundary wall and removing the Iron Gate of

the plot of the complainant without completion of demarcation

process. Only applicant was present when Kanoongo visited the site

for demarcation. Thereafter, Tehsildar directed to get the

demarcation done by TSM.

It is also pertinent to mention here that both Vinod Gupta

(Vendor) and Mr. Rohit Jain (Mediator) told during enquiry that

property sold by Vinod Gupta and his brothers to Math was having

road at three sides and a vacant plot/land at remaining one side. They

also told that some portion of land, out of total plot/land sold to Math

was left outside the boundary wall towards roadside.

Enquiry was also conducted from Gayatri Kaushik (Vendor)

and her husband Mahesh Kaushik in this regard who - stated that

plot measuring 500 sq yards was sold to Dr Anil Jain and possession

was also handed over. Thereafter, Dr Anil Jain constructed boundary

wall and installed gate in front portion. Presently, there are roads on

three sides of plot purchased by Math from Mr. Vinod Gupta and a

vacant plot on remaining side which belongs to Dr. Anil Jain.

However, alleged persons carried out construction on front portion

of plot of Dr Anil Jain measuring Approx. 70 yards, leaving no

passage to the remaining portion of plot of Dr. Anil Jain.

As the both parties are claiming their right on plot in

questions and demarcation of the plot is still pending. Both the

parties have approached to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the

Hon'ble Court pleased to order in the matter of CS(OS) 339/2022

and CS(OS) 340/2022 &s I.A. 9119/2022 (u/s 149 CrPC) vide order

dated 01.06.2022 that the SDM of the area concerned is directed to

carry out demarcation of the subject land and identify the land which

falls under Khasra No. 17/2/2.Till the next date of hearing, the

parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the land

comprised in Khasra No. 17/2/2.'It is further ordered that a Local

Commissioner has been appointed and he will visit the subject land

and inspect the same. The report is awaited.

As per direction of Hon'ble High Court, demarcation of

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 24 of 39

subject property has been initiated on 17.06.2022 in presence of both

the parties and the same is under process. The next date of hearing is

fixed for l1.11.2022.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

30. So also, the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court on the basis

of the inspection carried out on 07.06.2022 in his report dated 21.06.2022

has given its conclusion as follows: -

“8. As per my observations and as recorded in the photos and videos,

it can be seen that:

a. A new wall has been constructed along with the internal Road

thereby blocking the complete access to the subject land from

the internal road;

…

b. Another internal wall has been constructed from a hut

belonging to Defendant No. Ito the adjacent building towards

the north of the suit property thereby completely land locking

the undisputed portion of the subject land;

c. Lot of construction material is still lying in the property of

Defendant No. 1.

d. At the time of the commission, no construction was ongoing.

However, on enquiring the representatives/ counsels of

Defendant No. I whether the construction would be continued

to which, he responded in affirmation.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

31. The Secretary, RWA of Shanti Kunj colony has also given a statement

dated 25.04.2022

8

confirming that defendant no. 1 has unlawfully trespassed

into the plot no. D-1 of the plaintiff and has dispossessed the plaintiff by

blocking his access to internal road/Mata Marg. The Secretary has also

issued a statement dated 12.04.2022

9

stating that the demarcation of plots in

the colony has to be verified on the basis of the Layout Plan submitted by

defendant no. 6/RWA to GNCTD and cannot be carried out through revenue

8

Document No. 10 filed by the plaintiff under index dated 30.05.2022

9

Document No. 9 filed by the plaintiff under index dated 30.05.2022

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 25 of 39

authorities.

32. The documents submitted by defendant no. 6/RWA to GNCTD in

2010 including the Layout Plan, the letters issued by RWA in April, 2022,

the Police report dated 22.06.2022 and the Local Commissioner’s report

dated 21.06.2022 prima facie evidence that the plaintiff has been in

continuous and settled possession of plot no. D-1 since 1998 as asserted by

it and, therefore, its dispossession from the area admeasuring 92 sq. yards

forming part of its plot and the cut-off of plot no. D-1 from the internal

road/Mata Marg is liable to be restored as per the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (supra).

33. Pertinently, defendant no. 1 has not disputed before this Court that

there indeed existed an old boundary wall partitioning plot no. D-1 and plot

no. D-23, which was pulled down in April, 2022 and that a gate was

removed, which provided access to the plaintiff to his plot no. D-1.

Defendant no. 1 has instead justified its action of breaking the old

wall, removing the old gate and in its place constructing the new wall. The

justification given by defendant no. 1 is two-fold: (i) Defendant no. 1 has

sought to challenge the title of plaintiff and defendant no. 5 to plot nos. D-1

and D-2 and in this regard defendant no. 1 has also filed a separate suit i.e.,

CS(OS) 339/2022; and (ii) Defendant no. 1 has sought to contend that the

disputed area (of 92 sq. yards) falls in Khasra no. 17/2/1 as per the SDM’s

demarcation report dated 01.08.2022. And since plaintiff admittedly has no

title in Khasra no. 17/2/1 as per its registered title deed dated 19.01.1998, the

defendant no. 1’s action of re-constructing the boundary wall in April, 2022

does not require any interference from this Court.

34. This Court will now proceed to examine both these defences offered

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 26 of 39

by Defendant no. 1, to continue to retain the possession of the disputed area

of 92 sq. yards, which was trespassed into on April, 2022.

35. In this Court’s considered opinion, defendant no. 1’s challenge in CS

(OS) 339/2022 to the title of plaintiff and defendant no. 5, can have no

bearing on the plaintiff’s claim for restoration of status quo in this suit,

which is based on settled possession since 1998 (i.e., 24 years in April 2022)

and is thus protected in law.

36. Nevertheless, this Court has examined the merits of the said

argument. Defendant no. 1 has asserted that Mrs. Gayatri Devi, the vendor

in sale deed dated 19.01.1998 executed in as on the said date only had title

to the extent of 608 sq. yards in Khasra no. 17/2/2 and, therefore, the

registered sale deed dated 19.01.1998 seeking to transfer 1008 sq. yards in

Khasra No. 17/2/2 is illegal and void. Defendant no. 1 has asserted that Mrs.

Gayatri Devi had already transferred 400 sq. yards to third-parties [Ms.

Zohra Fatima and Mr. M.B. Pandey] prior thereto in the year 1994.

37. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if the aforesaid

submissions are presumed to be correct, the registered sale deed dated

19.01.1998 is valid to the extent of 608 sq. yards which indisputably vested

in Mrs. Gayatri Devi. The effect of nullity of the sale deed qua the

remaining 400 sq. yards would in law and equity be borne by defendant no.

5, who is the husband of Mrs. Gayatri Devi since he would be presumably

aware of the prior actions of Mrs. Gayatri Devi. Thus, rights if any that

defendant no. 1 intends to exercise against Mrs. Gayatri Devi would be

borne by defendant no. 5, who was allotted plot no. D-2. However,

plaintiff’s right to plot no. D-1 would not be affected due to the said defect

in Mrs. Gayatari Devi’s title.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 27 of 39

38. This Court also observes that the title claim of defendant no. 1

through Ms. Zohra Fatima on plot no. D-1 and plot no. D-2 is not

maintainable, as there is no sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1 for the

said 400 sq. yards as on date. Defendant no. 1 has relied upon an ATS, GPA,

Will, etc to claim title in 400 sq. yards in Khasra No. 17/2/2 through

Ms. Zohra Fatima. It is well settled that such customary documents do not

create any title rights in favour of the vendee and, therefore, defendant no.1

cannot maintain any challenge to the registered sale deed dated 19.01.1998

in these proceedings.

39. In this suit defendant no. 1 has also raised challenge to the remaining

600 sq. yards forming part of the registered sale deed dated 19.01.1998 by

asserting that one Nova Agency is the owner of the said 600 sq. yards. an

ATS dated 14.11.1994 has been placed on record. Firstly, an ATS cannot

prove the ownership of Nova Agency; moreover, defendant no. 1 does not

claim any rights in the alleged 600 sq. yards purportedly held by the said

Nova Agency. This Court has also perused the pleading of CS(OS)

339/2022, filed for challenging the sale deed dated 19.01.1998 and it finds

that in that suit as well there is no such assertion that Nova Agency is the

owner of 600 sq. yards of forming part of plot no. D-1 or plot no. D-2. This

submission is, therefore, is bereft of any merits in its entirety.

40. The second defence of defendant no. 1 is that the disputed area of 92

sq. yards, which formed part of plot no. D-1 falls in Khasra no. 17/2/1 as per

the SDM’s demarcation map and demarcation report dated 01.08.2022. It is

stated that since as per the registered sale deed dated 19.01.1998 plaintiff

only has title rights in Khasra no. 17/2/2, he has no right to seek restoration

of the boundary wall to its earlier possession.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 28 of 39

41. The plaintiff has disputed the SDM’s demarcation report. The plaintiff

has relied upon the site plan dated 14.07.2021 issued by the Revenue

Department (at the request of defendant no. 1) as well as the Layout Plan of

the Shanti Kunj colony to state that the area of 92 sq. yards has been in his

settled possession since 1998; and the said area fell outside the boundary

wall of plot no. D-23.

42. For deciding this issue, this Court presumes that the SDM’s

demarcation report dated 01.08.2022 is correct and indeed the disputed 92

sq. yards falls in Khasra no. 17/2/1. And, plaintiff as per its own sale deed

purchased land which fell in Khasra no. 17/2/2. However, this Court finds

merit in the submission of the plaintiff that public documents on record

show that plaintiff has been in settled possession of the disputed/trespassed

92 sq. yards since the year 1998 and keeping in view the settled law that

even the rightful owner cannot dispossess a person in settle possession,

defendant nos. 1 to 4 are not entitled to perpetuate the SDM’s report.

Post urbanization of Village, Mehrauli in 1962, Revenue Authorities ceased to have

jurisdiction over the subject plan of plot no. D-1 and D-23 and Layout Plan of 2010

has a binding effect

43. Defendant no. 1 is an old resident of Shanti Kunj colony having its

branch at plot no. D-3, at least since 2010 and is well aware of the Layout

Plan of Shanti Kunj colony submitted to GNCTD. The Layout Plan of the

colony shows that plot D-1 has its opening on internal road/the Mata Marg.

Even on site, plot no. D-1 as on the date of purchase of plot no. D-3 (i.e.,

08.03.2021) had an opening on the internal road/Mata Marg. Defendant no.

1 thus while purchasing plot no. D-23 was aware of the location of

plaintiff’s plot no. D-1 and its opening on the internal road/the Mata Marg.

44. The land of plot no. D-23 and D-1, though it falls in village Mehrauli

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 29 of 39

it is admitted that the village Mehrauli was urbanised vide notification dated

13.06.1962 issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation

Act, 1957. Thereafter, the subject land ceased to be governed by Delhi Land

Reforms Act, 1954 and the Revenue Authorities ceased to have any

jurisdiction over this land. This proposition of law has been authoritatively

settled by Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh

10

, has held

as under: -

“36. After harmonizing the provisions of the Act, 1954 and Act

1957, we are of the considered view that once a notification has

been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the

Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. In

sequel thereto, the proceedings pending under the Act, 1954

become non est and loses its legal significance.”

(Emphasis supplied)

In these facts there was no occasion for defendant no. 1 to have

approached the SDM office on 14.06.2021 for carrying out demarcation of

Khasra no. 17/2/1. The SDM did not have any jurisdiction over this land in

2021 or thereafter. Defendant no. 1 was bound to take possession of the land

forming subject matter of the sale deeds dated 08.03. 2021 on as is where is

basis, as per the actual position on the site and as per the Layout Plan of the

colony. Defendant nos. 1 to 4 have sought to justify breaking the old

boundary wall on the basis of the site map prepared by the Patwari on

14.07.2021.

However, in the opinion of this Court the said site map issued by the

Patwari was not legal and valid as it has no legal authority over this land. It

was thus impermissible for defendant no. 1 to unilaterally break down the

existing boundary wall partitioning plot no. D-23 and plot no. D-1.

45. The defendant no. 1’s action in April, 2022 of breaking down the

10

2023 SCC OnLine SC 261

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 30 of 39

existing boundary wall, removing the gate and constructing the new wall

amounts to interfering in the settled possession of the plaintiff without

following due process of law. Defendant no. 1’s action was unlawful and

illegal and it cannot be sustained on the basis of the SDM’s report dated

01.08.2022.

46. Defendant no. 1 was aware that plot no. D-1 has access to the internal

road/the Mata Marg and it purchased plot no. D-23 with this knowledge.

However, by constructing the new wall plot no. D-1’s access has been cut

off to the internal road/the Mata Marg. This Court finds no merit in the

submission of the defendant no. 1 that the plaintiff can gain access to the

internal road through the plot no. D-2 under the occupation and control of

defendant no. 5.

47. Shanti Kunj colony is an unauthorized colony. This colony has

already applied for its regularization and has submitted a Layout Plan to

GNCTD. The documents submitted by defendant no. 6/RWA to GNCTD

have been already referred to above and reproduced. The letter issued by the

RWA address to GNCTD while enclosing the Layout Plan is relevant and

reads as under: -

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 31 of 39

48. The RWA has also submitted to GNCTD the list of plots in Block D,

which includes plot number, plot area and the status of construction on the

plot (i.e., built up or vacant). In this list plot no. D-1 is shown as 500 sq.

yards and plot no. D-23 is shown as 1150 sq. yards. The RWA has also

submitted to GNCTD a certified Layout Plan which similarly gives details

of all the plots. The said Layout Plan is to be read in conjunction with the

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 32 of 39

details of all the plots submitted. The said relevant information of D Block

read as under: -

49. In the considered opinion of this Court, purchase and sale of land in

this colony where plots have been demarcated in the Layout Plan certified

by an Architect and submitted to GNCTD for approval, the vendors of plot

no. D-23 can only sell the land forming subject matter of plot no. D-23 as

identified in the said Layout Plan. The aforesaid Layout Plan has been

submitted on behalf of all the plot owners of this colony including owner of

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 33 of 39

plot no. D-23. The plot owners are bound by the Layout Plan, which

includes the vendors of plot no. D-23. The defendant no. 1/vendee having

purchased the said plot no. D-23 after verifying the plot physically on the

site cannot proceed to unilaterally demolish existing boundary walls leading

to encroachment on the adjoining plots, as not only does it interfere with the

settled possession of the adjoining plot owner, but it also negates the Layout

Plan submitted to GNCTD. In this Layout Plan, plot no. D-1 has a single

entry in the plot to the internal road/the Mata Marg independent of plot no.

D-2. The submission of defendant no. 1 that plaintiff should seek entry to

the internal road/the Mata Marg through plot no. D-2 nullifies this Layout

Plan. Thus, prima facie on this ground also the interference by defendant no.

1 in the possession of the plaintiff cannot be permitted.

50. The Architect engaged by Shanti Kunj colony for preparing the

Layout Plan in 2010 would have available with him the dimensions of each

plot as is evident from the Layout Plan. The Layout plan contains minute

details about the area of each plot and, therefore, the sale and purchase of

the plots ought to have been undertaken as per the said Layout Plan. The

arguments submitted by defendant no. 1 for not acting upon the said Layout

Plan is without any merits.

51. The principles of granting mandatory interim reliefs has been opined

by the Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab

Warden

11

. The relevant paragraph nos. 16 and 17 of the said judgment read

as under: -

“16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus

granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-

contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the

11

(1990) 2 SCC 117

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 34 of 39

final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the

undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the

restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party

complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party

who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause

great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was

granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or

would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm,

courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these

guidelines are: -

(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a

higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for

a prohibitory injunction.

(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which

normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.

(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such

relief.

17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an

interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound

judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts

and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are

neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be

exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as

prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a

sound exercise of a judicial discretion.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

52. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Krishna Ram Mahale v.

Shobha Venkat Rao (supra) after holding that even a rightful owner cannot

dispossess an occupant in settled possession, upheld the directions of the

trial court for restoration of possession of the plaintiff, who was

dispossessed by the true owner without following the due process of law and

issued directions for restoration of possession. The relevant portion of the

judgment reads as under: -

“12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted before us that the

conduct of the appellant was such that apprehension could justly be

entertained that the appellant would try to avoid compliance with the

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 35 of 39

decree for possession confirmed by this Court by putting some

outsider in possession or some other underhand means and that we

should direct the executing court that the decree should be executed

with the police help against any person or persons who might be in

possession of the business and premises wherein it was conducted.

Instead of giving any directions to the executing court in this regard,

we order that the Court Receiver of Bombay High Court is appointed

as the Receiver of the said business and the premises in which the

same was conducted as stated aforesaid. He will take possession of the

said business and premises from whosoever may be in possession

thereof. He may apply for police help in taking possession if he thinks

fit. The Receiver will then put the plaintiff in possession as his agent

on usual terms without security on payments of such outgoings as the

Receiver may think fit but without asking for any royalty. This order

will remain in force for a period of eight weeks from the date when

the Receiver takes possession as aforestated but will be subject to any

orders which the executing court may pass after hearing the

respondent herein.”

(Emphasis supplied)

53. This Court hereinabove has already opined that the documents on

record show that plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit land/plot no. D-

1 since 1998. The registered sale deed 19.01.1998 executed in favour of the

plaintiff and the Layout Plan of the colony qua the suit warrants that the

plaintiff has a strong case for trial. The prima facie case set up by the

plaintiff is of a higher standard that requires the relief of mandatory

injunction.

54. The Local Commissioner in its report dated 21.06.2022 has reported

that the construction of the new boundary wall by defendant no. 1 has

landlocked the plaintiff’s plot no. D-1. The relevant portion of the said

report at paragraph 7 reads as under: -

“7. There was no demarcation of Khasra No. 17/2/2 and also, there

was no access to the undisputed portion of the subject land owned

by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the inspection of the subject land was

carried out from the outside of the walls surrounding the said

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 36 of 39

undisputed subject land, which could only be reached through the

temple of Defendant No. 1. The actual condition of the subject land as

on 07 June 2022 was captured in the photos and videos. Colored prints

of photographs and a pen drive containing the recorded video, are

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE- 3(Collv).”

(Emphasis Supplied)

55. The Local Commissioner has recommended an access to the

plaintiff’s plot no. D-1 through internal road/the Mata Marg in the manner

set out in paragraph 11 of its report dated 21.06.2022. This Court vide order

dated 02.08.2022 had issued directions for implementation of the said

recommendation of the Local Commissioner. Defendant no.1 vide order

dated 06.08.2022 gave an undertaking to the Court that defendant no. 1 will

provide unrestricted access to the plaintiff pending the disposal of I.A.

12628/2022. Though, defendant no. 1 undertook to provide access to the

plaintiff on 06.08.2022, it was through the gate of defendant no. 1 installed

in plot no. D-23. This arrangement was to continue until the adjudication of

I.A. No. 12628/2022, since the said application is also disposed of today, the

direction for restoring the status of the plots D-1 and D-23 as it existed in

April, 2022 has been issued.

56. However, in view of the findings returned hereinabove this Court is of

the considered opinion that defendant no. 1 has unlawfully cut off plaintiff’s

right of ingress and egress to plot no. D-1 from internal road/the Mata Marg

in April, 2022. This independent access of plot no. D-1 is documented in

GNCTD record when the Layout Plan was submitted by RWA on

28.12.2010. The defendant no. 1 has taken law into its hands and cut off the

entry of the plaintiff, which cannot be permissible. Thus, if the mandatory

relief is not granted to the plaintiff, it would cause serious injury to the

plaintiff.

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 37 of 39

57. The plaintiff approached the legal authorities for redressal

immediately. It first approached the police authorities and then filed the

present suit in May, 2022.

58. In view of the findings hereinabove and the law settled by the

Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden

(supra) and Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao (supra), this

Court is of the prime facie opinion that this matter is a fit case for restoring

the status quo ante as it existed in April, 2022.

59. Accordingly, it is directed that the plaintiff is hereby authorized to

demolish the wall wrongfully constructed by defendant no. 1 to the extent it

encroached upon the 92 sq. yards portion of land forming part of plot no. D-

1. The plaintiff will restore the boundary wall partitioning plot no. D-1 and

D-23 to its original possession as it stood in April, 2022. The plaintiff’s

frontage [admeasuring 92 sq. yds.] of plot no. D-1 situated in Khasra No.

17/2/2 will be restored. The Local Commissioner appointed by this Court

vide order dated 01.06.2022, Mr. Kamal Kumar, Advocate (Mobile No.

9650099833) is once again appointed for carrying out this mandate. The

concerned SHO is directed to provide police assistance to the plaintiff and

the Local Commissioner for carrying out this mandate.

60. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- to be

borne by the plaintiff at this stage and will be recovered from defendant nos.

1 to 4.

61. It is further directed that defendant nos. 1 to 4 are hereby restrained

from making any further construction or destroying any part of the suit land,

known as plot no. D-1, including but not limited to the wall of the suit land,

and alienating, encumbering, transferring or disturbing the status of the suit

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 38 of 39

land.

62. With the aforesaid directions, the captioned application stands

allowed and is disposed of.

I.A. 12628/2022 in CS(OS) 340/2022

63. In view of the order passed in I.A. 9117/2022, this application under

Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by defendant nos. 1 to 4 seeking

modification of the order dated 01.06.2022 stands dismissed.

I.A. 15245/2022 in CS(OS) 340/2022

64. This application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, has been filed by

the plaintiff seeking modification of the order dated 06.08.2022.

65. In view of the order passed in I.A. 9117/2022, this application has

become infructuous. The application is disposed of being infructuous.

I.A. 11633/2022 in CS(OS) 340/2022

66. This application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, has been filed by

the plaintiff for initiating contempt proceedings against defendant nos. 1 to 4

for violation of the order dated 01.06.2022.

67. In view of the order 06.08.2022, this application has become

infructuous. The application is disposed of being infructuous.

I.A. 15247/2022 in CS(OS) 340/2022

68. This application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, has been filed by

the plaintiff for initiating contempt proceedings against defendant nos. 1 to 4

for violation of the order dated 06.08.2022.

69. In view of the order dated 02.09.2024 and directions passed today in

I.A. 9117/2022, this application is disposed of.

CS(OS) 340/2022

70. List before the Joint Registrar (J) for admission/denial of documents

CS(OS) 339/2022 & Ors. Page 39 of 39

and marking of exhibits on 24.07.2025.

71. List before the Court for framing of issues on 22.09.2025.

CS(OS) 793/2022

72. List before the Joint Registrar (J) for completion for pleadings in I.A.

No. 21290/2022 on 24.07.2025.

73. List before the Court for framing of issues on 22.09.2025.

CS(OS) 339/2022

74. List before the Joint Registrar (J) for admission/denial of documents

and marking of exhibits on 24.07.2025.

75. List before the Court for framing of issues on 22.09.2025.

76. Copy of this order be sent to learned Local Commissioner for

information and compliance

77. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official

website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated

as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No

physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

(JUDGE)

MAY 20, 2025/hp/rhc/MG/AKP