IN THE COURT OF SH. ROBINJEET SINGH, CIVIL JUDGE III
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI

SUIT NO. 606723/16

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 28.07.2006
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 08.08.2019
DATE OF DISPOSAL : 31.08.2019

1 SH. JAI BAHADUR
S/O SHER BAHADUR
R/O B-194, CHUNNA BHATTI
INDL. AREA, KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

2 SH. HARESH CHAND
S/O SH. VISHESHWAR
R/O B-204, CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

3 SH. KANWAR BAHADUR
S/O SH. SHER BAHADUR
R/O B-193, CHUNA BHATTI
INDL. AREA, KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

4 SMT. MANJU SINGH
W/O SH. JAIPAL SINGH

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 1/20
R/O B-184, T-HUTS CHUNA
INDL. AREA, KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

5 JAMIL AHMED
S/O SH. ATABUL AHMAD
R/O W-9 B75, CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

6 SH. MURLI PERSHAD
S/O SH. PRADEEP MEHATO
R/O W-9 1366, CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

7 SH. PAWAN CHAWLA
S/O SH. BHAWAN DASS CHAWLA
R/O W-9 B195, CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

8 M.D NISTAIYAQUE ALI
S/O M.D SAFEE ALLAH
B-123, CHUNA BHATTI
INDL. AREA, B-BLOCK
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 2/20
9 ISTAH ALI
S/O SH. SAFIULLA
R/O B-129, FIRE STATION
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

10 ADHIA SHANKAR
S/O SH RAM BAHADUR
R/O B-15, CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

11 PRAMOD GUPTA
S/O SITA RAM GUPTA
R/O B-16, CHUNNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

12 HANS RAJ
S/O SH. RAM NATH
R/O B-458, T-HUTS
CHUNA BHATTI, KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

13 SHRI JAI RAM
R/O B-205, CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 3/20
14 JOGESHWAR
R/O B-192, CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI-110015

15 CHANDER SEKHAR
S/O SH. MARAN MATTO
R/O CNNO. 576, CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

16 SH. MANGAL
S/O SH. JAGDEV
R/O CN NO. 624
FIRE STATION
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

17SH. SURAJ
S/O NIKKU
R/O JHUGGI NO. A-3
T-HUTS, A-BLOCK
CHUNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

18 SHAUKAT ALI
S/O ABUL MAJID
R/O 128, T-HUTS

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 4/20
FIRE STATION
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

19 SH. RAM VILAS PANDEY
S/O AWEDH NATH PANDEY
T-66, CHUNNA BHATTI
INDL. AREA, KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

20 SH. RAM CHANDER THAKUR
S/O SH. BAHADUR THAKUR
R/O CHUNNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI

21 SH. ANJANI KUMAR MISRA
R/O CHUNNA BHATTI
KIRTI NAGAR
NEW DELHI
VS.
1 DSIDC
T.C BUILDING
WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA
NEW DELHI
THROUGH
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (OM)

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 5/20
2 DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD
THROUGH C.E.O
PUNAVAS BHAWAN
I.P ESTATE
NEW DELHI-110002
……. DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION

JUDGMENT

1 The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking
relief of permanent injunction against the defendants
restraining them from evicting the plaintiffs from the respective
vacant space of their Jhuggis as shown in Site Plan without
alloting the alternative sites to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have also
sought a relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants
to allot alternative sites to the plaintiffs in lieu of their
demolished Jhuggis.

2 Shorn off the unnecessary details, core facts that would
need a recital are enumerated hereinbelow :-

Plaintiffs are Jhuggi Jhopri Dwellers in Khasra
No. 279,277,275, 276, 245, 252, 253, 254, 260,262,
263 264 i.e. Chuna Bhatti, Fire Station, Police
Station and the Community Centre as shown in red
colour in the site plan. They are in occupation of their
respective Jhuggis for the last 15 to 20 years and are

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 6/20
living with their families in their respective jhuggis
without any interference from the side of the
defendants. In the month of January, 2005
DDA,MCD,PWD LAC Kapashera (hereinafter
referred to as ‘erst while defendants’) came on the
spot with heavy force and demolished Jhuggis of the
plaintiffs without any prior notice and without alloting
alternative site to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs approached
the defendants to provide alternative site to them as
no prior notice of demolition was given to them but the
same went unheeded. Plaintiffs are still in occupation
and possession of the vacant space of their Jhuggis
and are still residing there without any roof on their
head. The defendants are still threatening the
plaintiffs to dispossess them from the vacant space of
the Jhuggis which they are in possession of. The
plaintiffs have apprehension that the defendants at any
time can forcibly evict them from their respective
vacant space. Defendants threatened the plaintiffs
last time on 06.07.2006. On 10.04.2006 a legal notice
was issued by the plainiffs to defendants to allot plots
to the plaintiff in lieu of their demolished Jhuggis but
defendants not replied the same. Aggrieved by the
conduct of the defendants plaintiff instituted the
present suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

3 At the outset, it is important to clarify that intitially there
were four defendants in the present suit namely
DDA,MCD,PWD LAC Kapashera. However, vide order dt.

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 7/20
27.11.2012 these four defendants were deleted from the array
of parties and DSIDC being considered a necessary party, was
impleaded as defendant in the present suit and it is now
defendant No.1. After that on 21.04.2015 an application was
moved by the plaintiff for impleading Delhi Urban Shelter
Improvement Board as defendant in the instant case. Vide order
dt. 04.10.2016 DUSIB was impleaded as defendant and it is
now defendant No. 2 in the present case.

4 Vehemently denying the averments made in the plaint,
defendant No. 1 in its WS averred that DSIDC was handed
over the supervision and management of the Kirti Nagar
Industrial Area after coming into force of Delhi Industrial
Development, Operation SectionMaintenance Act, 2010. It was
further averred that defendant No. 2 is primarily responsible for
providing various type of services to slum dwellers in the city of
Delhi including works relating to the provision of Shelters to
urban poor/slum dwellers under the policy of Relocation of
Slums and J.J Dwellers and therefore, defendant No. 2 is a
proper and necessary party in the present suit. It was also
averred in the para No. 10 of WS that defendant No.1 is entitled
to take action for the removal of Jhuggis as per the policy of
Government.

5 Defendant No. 2 has filed a separate WS in which it has
denied the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that
the land in question comprises in Khasra No. 279,275,
277,276,245,252,253,254,262 263 of Village Narina does not
pertains to the plaintiff and they have raised the Jhuggis upon

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 8/20
the said land after the issuance of the notification under Sectionsection
4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further averred that no title
documents have been filed by the plaintiffs and therefore,
plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to
be dismissed.

6 Plaintiffs have filed the replication to the WS filed on
behalf of defendants. In replication plaintiffs have reiterated the
averments made in the plaint and denied the contents of the
WS.

7 After hearing the parties and on the basis of the
pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dt.
30.07.2007 which are as under:-

1 Whether the suit is maintainable as theland is
acquired under SectionLand Acquisition Act?OPD

2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunctionas prayed for?OPP

3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
mandatory injunction as prayed for ?OPP

4 Relief

On 22.07.2008 three additional issues were framed
which are as under :-

1A Whether the suit is not maintainable for non joinder
of necessary parties?OPD

1B Whether there is no cause of action against the
defendant?OPD

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 9/20
1C Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the
purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction?OPD

8 In PE plaintiff No. 1 got examined himself as PW-1.
He relied upon certain documents exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1
to Ex. PW-1/34 which are as under:-

I. Ex. PW-1/1 is the original SPA
II. Ex. PW-1/2 is the site plan
III. Ex. PW-1/3 to Ex. PW-1/6 are copy of ration card, election
card, receipt.

IV. Ex. PW-1/7 to Ex. PW-1/10 are the copies of ration card,
election card and the receipt of plaintiff No.1
V. Ex. PW-1/11 to Ex. PW-1/13 are the copies of ration card,
election card and the receipt of Kanwar Bahadur
VI.Ex. PW-1/14 to Ex. PW-1/16 are the copies of ration card,
election card and the receipt of plaintiff No. 5
VII. Ex. PW-1/17 is the copy of election card of plaitniff
No. 8
VIII. Ex. PW-1/18 is the election card of plaintiff No. 9
IX. Ex. PW-1/19 Ex. PW-1/20 are the copies of election
card and the receipt of plaintiff No. 15
X. Ex. PW-1/21 Ex. PW-1/24 are the copies of election
card and the receipt of plaintiff No. 21
XI. Ex. PW-1/25 is notice dt. 10.04.2006
XII. Ex. PW-1/26 toEx. PW-1/29 are the postal receipt
XIII. Ex. PW-1/30 is the A.D Bearing stamp of DDA
XIV. Ex. PW-1/31 is the A.D bearing stamp of MCD
XV. Ex. PW-1/32 UPC certificate
XVI. Ex. PW-1/33 is the original A.D

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 10/20
XVII. Ex. PW-1/34 is the UPC

9 In DE, defendant No.1 got examined Sh. Tariq Shafi
as D1W1. He relied upon certain documents exhibited as
Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/4 which are as under:-

I. Ex. DW-1/1 is the letter dt. 01.10.2013
II. Ex. DW-1/2 is the copy of minutes of meeting
III. Ex. DW-1/3 is the the copy of inventory
drawing
IV. Ex. DW-1/4 is the letter dt. 01.03.2017
Further, defendant No.2 got examined Sh. Pramod
Kumar as D2W1. He relied upon certain documents
exhibting as Ex. D2W-1/1 to Ex. D2W-1/2 which are as
under:-.

i. Ex. D2W-1/1 is the copy of policy along with
order of LG dt. 11.12.2017
ii. Ex. D2W-1/2 is the copy of rehabilitation and
relocation policy 2015

10 Arguments heard at length from both the sides and
record perused. I have also meticulously gone through
the citiations filed by both the parties.

Determination and Analysis of Issues:-

Issue No. 2 3

2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunctionas prayed for? OPP

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 11/20

3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
mandatory injunction as prayed for ?OPP

11 In order to avoid repitition of evidence and for the
sake of brevity, both these issues are being dealt
simultaneously. The onus to prove these issues was upon
the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 Sh. Jai Bahaur was examined
as PW-1 who in his examination in chief by way of
affidavit Ex. PW-1/A reiterated the averments made in the
plaint. PW-1 was firstly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
defendant No. 2 in which he stated it to be correct that no
action was taken by defendant No. 2 on 15.01.2005. He
further admitted that he does not know the Khasra
Numbers of the suit land. During the cross examination by
ld counsel for defendant No. 1, PW-1 deposed that he
does not have any ownership document of the land on
which he is residing. He further deposed that he is residing
in the suit property since 1984. To substaintiate his claim,
PW-1 has brought on record certain documents relating to
himself and other plaitniffs which were exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/24. PW-1 further deposed that he
does not know as to officials of which department had
came to demolish the dwelling house, however, he further
deposed that the officials were from MCD,DDA Police
Officials. He further deposed that after 2005-2006 no-one
from any department came to demolish the Jhuggis.

12 In support of its defence defendant No.1 got
examined Sh. Tariq Shaffi who is an Ex. Engineer with

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 12/20
defendant No.1 as D1W1. D1W1 in his cross examination
stated that he does not have any personal knowledge of
the present case. He further deposed that power of
defendant No. 1 is limited to the maintenance and
development of road and drains of Kirti Nagar Industrial
Area. He further stated it to be correct that defendant No.1
has no power to remove the encroachers from the
disputed land. D1W1 has relied upon certain documents
which are exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-1/4.

13 Defendant No. 2 in support of Its case got examined
Sh. Pramod Kumar as D2W1. D2W1 in his cross
examination categorically deposed that the land in dispute
is not owned by defendant No.2. He further deposed that
defendant No. 2 has never conducted any survey of the
land in dispute as the same is not owned by defendant No.

2. He further stated it to be correct that DUSIB has not
taken any action to remove the encroachment of the suit
land. D2W1 relied upon two documents and the same are
exhibited as D2W1/1 to Ex. D2W1/2.

14 I have meticulously analysed all the oral and
documentary evidences as adduced by both the parties.

15 At this stage, it is important to highlight the ratio of
certain land mark decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court
and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

In the case titled as Maladeo Savlaram
Shelke Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation 1995 (1)

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 13/20
SCALE 829 Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to
Woodroffe on ‘law relating to injunction; L.C Goyle’
Law of Injunction; David Bean ‘Injunction’, Joyce on
injunctions and other leading articles on the subject
held that a person who was a tresspasser in
possession could not seek injunction against the true
owner.

In that context, Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted
Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. MCD 1993 SCR (3) 522
wherein it was observed that injunction is
discretionery and that judicial proceedings can not be
used to protect or to perpatuate a wrong committed
by a person who approaches the Court.

In the case titled as Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.
Vs. Hotel Imperial Ors 127 (2006) DLT 431, inter
alia the question before the Court was whether a
person who is in unlawful occupation can approach
the Court for an injunction order restraining the lawful
owner from dispossessing him. After going through
the catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court
and Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was observed in the
instant case that grant of injunction is based upon
equitable principles. Injunction itself being an
equitable remedy, one of the principles which is well
settled is that a person who seeks equity must come
to Court with clean hands and must himself do
equity. It is in this context of this very question that a
Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi gave
Its decision in case titled as D.T.T.D.C Vs. D.R

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 14/20
Mehra Sons 62 (1996) DLT 234 that injunction is
an equitable relief and Court must see whether a
person who is a tresspasser can seek the helping
hand of the Court for protecting his unlawful
possession as against the owner. A person who
seeks equity must do equity. He must also come to
the Court with clean hands. When he complies these
principles there will be no occassion for him to seek
an injunction in asmuchas the tresspass would have
automatically stood vacated. If he does not comply,
he cannot at the same time ask for the helping hand
of the Court to protect his illegal possession. It was
also observed in this case that although in some
other cases i.e Bhawani Investements Ltd. Vs.
Shri Properties, Moyilivarapu Anna Purnaih Vs.
Melampati Narsimha Rao; Patel Exhibitors (Pvt.)
Ltd. Vs. The Corporation of the City of
Bangalore; Bhola Nath Ors. Vs. Maharao Raj
Saheb Bundi State; SectionSmt. Geeta and Anr. v. Ashok
Kumar (1982) 84 Pun. L.R. 291 and in Sai Balaji
Trading Co. V. Veeraswamy 1980 (1) AIR 28, a
contrary view has been taken that till evicted by due
process of law, a tresspasser is entitled to injunction
against the true owner, however, it was opined that
these judgments runs quite contrary to the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maladeu
Savlaram Shelke Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra) and Shiv Kumar Chadha Vs. MCD
(supra) and must be deemed to be wrongly decided.

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 15/20
16 The thread of reasoning, running through the
abovementioned judgments make it clear that injunction is
an equitable relief and a person in unlawful possession
can not seek injunction against the true owner.

From the above analysis of the oral and
documentary evidence as adduced by the parties and
relevant case laws this Court is of the view that plaintiffs
have failed to prove as to in which capacity they are in
possession of land. Plaintiffs are essentially encroachers
and are in unlawful possession. It is a trite law that
injunction is an quitable relief and one who seeks equity
must also do equity. In the instant factual score plaintiffs
are themselves not in legal posession and Court can not
pass any order to prepetuate the wrong already
committed. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the
reasoning of th aforementioned authorities squarely
applies to the case in hand and plaintiffs are not entitled to
relief sought by them.

17 Moreover, from the careful perusal of the matter on
record, it is quiet evident that defendant No. 1 (DSIDC)
was given supervision and management of Kirti Nagar
Industrial Area with the coming into force of Delhi
Industrial Development, Operation and SectionMaintenance
Act,2010. No provision is there in the Act which empowers
DSIDC to remove the encroachment on the public land by
Jhuggis Hawkers etc. This fact was further coroborrated
by the unrebutted deposition of D1W1 in his cross

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 16/20
examination and unimpeached Ex. DW-1/1, Ex. DW-1/2,
Ex. DW-1/3 Ex. DW-1/4. Also, it is undeniably evident
from the perusal of the matter on record that defendant
No. 2 (DUSIB) is a statutory body created under the
provisions of Delhi Urban Shetler Improvement Board Act,
2010. A perusal of D2W1/1 (colly) and Ex. D2W1/2 (colly)
shows that DUSIB is the nodal agency for implementation
of policy of relocation/rehabilitation of J.J Basties in
respect of the lands belonging to MCD and Delhi
Government and its Department / Agencies. It is the duty
of the concerned land owning agency to protect its land
from the encroachers. Work of DUSIB is secondary in
nature as DUSIB comes into action only when land owning
agency makes a request to the board for rehabilitation or
relocation of the J.J. Basti. Also, this fact remained
unrebutted that no request of the land owning agency is
under consideration with defendant No. 2 for providing
alternative or relocation of the plaintiffs.

18 Thus, it is clear from the above discussion that none
of the defendants as impleaded in the present case is the
land owning authority qua the suit land. Also, it is evident
that name of these defendants per se have power to
remove the encroachement nor they have ever taken any
action to remove the encroachment on the suit land. Also,
it is undeniably evident that plaintiffs have neither claimed
anything against the present defendants in their amended
plaint nor they have deposed anything adverse against the
defendants.

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 17/20
19 On the basis of above observations and discussions,
this Court is of the considered view that plaintiffs have
failed to discharge the onus on them. Accordingly, issue
No. 2 3 are decided against the plaitniff and they are
held not entitled to the reliefs sought by them.

Issue No. 1, 1A, 1B 1C

1 Whether the suit is maintainable as the land is
acquired under SectionLand Acquisition Act?OPD

1A Whether the suit is not maintainable for non joinder
of necessary parties?OPD

1B Whether there is no cause of action against the
defendant?OPD

1C Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the
purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction?OPD

20 The onus to prove these issues was upon the
defendants. Perusal of the record shows that issue No.1
was framed vide order dt. 30.07.2007. Thereafter, vide
order dt. 22.07.2008 three additional issues were framed
which were numbered as Issue Nos. 1A,1B 1C. Till the
framing of these issues there were four defendants
namely DDA, MCD,PWD and LAC Kapashera and the
onus to prove the abovementioned issues was put on
those defendants. Vide order dt. 27.11.2012 it was held
that DDA, MCD,PWD and LAC Kapashera have nothing to
do with the suit property and DSIDC was impleaded as a
defendant being considered a necessary party and it is

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 18/20
now defendant No. 1 in the instant case. Thereafter that
vide order dt. 04.10.2016 DUSIB was held to be a
necessary party and impleaded as defendant No. 2.

21 Further perusal of the matter on record reveals that
these issues were framed taking into consideration the
WS moved on behalf of the erstwhile defendants who
were later on deleted from the array of parties vide order
dt. 27.11.2012. Further perusal of the WS on behalf of
DSIDC (defendant No.1) and DUSIB(defendant No.2)
shows that no averments made by them in their WS on the
basis of which the aforesmentioned issues can be framed.

22 At this stage, it is important to advert to the
provisions of the Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. This rule
provides descretionary power of the Court to amend and
strike out any issues at any time before passing of a
decree.

23 This Court exercising its descritionary power as
provided under Rule 5 of Order 14 read with section 151
CPC strikes out the above framed issues as the present
defendants can not be burdened to prove the
aforementioned issues as they were primarily framed with
onus of proof on the then defendants i.e. DDA,
MCD,PWD and LAC Kapashera who are no more parties
in the present suit. Moreover, the issues were rendered
redundant due to the deletion of erstwhile defendants at
the instance of which these issues were framed.

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 19/20
Consequently, the issues stand struck off.

Relief
24 In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that
plaintiffs have failed to prove their case on the basis of
balance of probabilities and consequently the suit of the
plaintiffs stands dismissed. No orders as to cost. Decree
Sheet be prepared. File be consigned to Record Room.

Digitally
Announced in the Open Court signed by
ROBINJEET
ROBINJEET SINGH
today i.e. 31.08.2019. SINGH Date:
2019.08.31
16:00:14
+0530
(Robinjeet Singh)
CJ (West)III THC/Delhi
31.08.2019

Suit No. 606723/16 Jai Bahadur Vs. DSIDC 20/20