Supreme Court of India
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 667
- Decided
- 9 September 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The suit filed on 14‑02‑2000 is barred by limitation because the cause of action first accrued in 1990, so the three‑year period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had expired.
Summary
The appellants, Khatri Hotels Private Ltd. and another, claimed title and sought an injunction over land they alleged to have purchased. The land had been urbanised under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and transferred to the Delhi Development Authority (DOA) by notification under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The trial court held the suit barred by limitation, a view affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined when the "right to sue" first accrued for purposes of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It held that the right first accrued in August/December 1990 when the respondents threatened demolition, not in 1998 as the appellants argued. Consequently, the three‑year limitation period had expired, the suit was time‑barred, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court also affirmed the trial court's findings that the appellants failed to prove ownership and had not approached the Court with clean hands, ordering them to pay costs.
Issues considered
- The suit for declaration of title and injunction is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- When does the "right to sue" first accrue for a suit based on multiple causes of action under Article 58?
- Whether the suit land is government land vested in the Central Government and transferred to the DOA, affecting the appellants' title claim.
- Whether the appellants have clean hands, having suppressed material facts and documents.
- Whether the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Whether the appellants proved ownership of the specific khasra parcels alleged to be the subject of the suit.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order II Rule 2
- Delhi Development Act, 1957s. Section 22(1)
- Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954s. Section 150(3)
- Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. Section 507
- Limitation Act, 1908s. Article 120
- Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 58, s. Section 20, s. Section 3
Subjects
Limitation ActArticle 58Right to sueGovernment landDelhi Development AuthorityClean hands doctrineOrder II Rule 2 CPCTitle disputeInjunction
Judgment
(2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 299
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 7773 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Suit for declaration of
title and injunction - Period of limitation - Held: Period
prescribed under Article 58 of the 1963 Act begins to run when C
the right to sue first accrues - If a suit is based on multiple
causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from
the date when the right to sue first accrues - Successive
violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the
suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of D
limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first
accrued - In the instant case, the right, if any, of the plaintiffs-
appellants over the suit land stood violated with the issue of
notification uls.507ofthe DMC Act in 1966(whereby the same
automatically vested in the Central Government) and, in any E
case, with the issue of notification u/s.~2(1) of the DD Act in
1974(whereby the Central Government transferred the suit
land to DOA) - Even if the appellants were to plead
ignorance about the two notifications, it is impossible to
believe that they did not know about the violation of their so- F
called right over the suit land despite the receipt of copy of
the written statement filed on behalf of the DOA in December,
1990 - Therefore, the cause of action will be deemed to have
accrued to the appellants in December, 1990 and the suit filed
on 14.2.2000 was clearly barred by time - Although, the suit G
of 2000 was cleverly drafted to convey an impression that the
right to sue accrued to the appellants in November/December,
1998 when they learnt about the wrong recorc!ing of entries in
Khasra Girdawris/Revenue Records, but falsity of the
299 H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A appellants claim that the cause of action accrued to them in
November/December, 1998 is established beyond any doubt
- The suit filed by the appellants on 14.2.2000 was clearly
beyond the period of limitation of 3 years prescribed under
Article 58 of the 1963 Act - The findings and conclusions
B recorded by the trial Court that the appellants had not
approached the Court with clean hands inasmuch as they
withheld Aks Sijra, site plan and the demarcation report and
award are also approved - Not only this, thpy raised illegal
construction despite the injunction order pa~ed by the High
C Court and that too without obtaining permission from the
competent authority - The appellants, who not only made
encroachment on the public land, but also abused the
process of the Court are saddled with cost, which is quantified
at Rs.5 lacs - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 -
D s.507 - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - s.22(1).
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Differences between
Art.58 of the 1963 Limitation Act and Art.120 of the 1908
Limitation Act - Discussed - Indian Limitation Act, 1908 -
Article 120.
E
Appellant No.2-'L' and his three brothers, who claim
to have purchased land comprised in khasra Nos.27281
167412 and 27281167413 total measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas
by a registered sale deed dated 15-10-1963, raised
F construction thereon and started a restaurant. With a
view to secure judicial approval of such occupation of
land, appellant No.2 - 'L' filed Suit No. 257611990 in the
High Court for grant of permanent injunction against the
MCD and the DDA by asserting that he was co-owner of
G house No.SO, Ward No.IX, Kishangarh, Mehrauli, which
formed part of khasra No.1674 and was purchased vide
registered sale deed and that the officials of MCD and the
ODA came to the suit premises along with the Tahsildar
on 10.8.1990 without serving any notice and threatened
H to demolish the superstructure on the ground that the
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 301
UNION OF INDIA
same was unauthorized. In the written statement filed on A
behalf of the DOA, it was averred that the suit land
belonged to Gaon Sabha and with the urbanization of
rural areas of Kishangarh, the same automatically vested
in the Central Government and further that vide
notification dated 20.8.1974 issued under Section 22(1) of B
the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Central Government
had transferred the suit land to the ODA and the plaintiff
had no right, title or interest in the same. The High Court
granted interim injunction ·and thereafter, the suit was
transferred to District Judge, Delhi, who assigned the c
same to Civil Judge, Delhi for <lisposal. The Civil Judge
dismissed the suit observing· that the plaintiff failed to
prove that he and his brothers were owners of the suit
land. The Civil Judge also held that the plaintiff was not
entitled to relief of injunction because the suit filed for
0
determination of title of the disputed land was pending
adjudication.
In the meanwhile, 'S', one of the brothers of appellant
No.2, filed another suit for injunction against the MCD and
the DOA. He claimed that he was co-owner of land E
measuring 1200 square yards forming part of khasra No.
1674, village Kishangarh. He alleged that on 29.2.1392, the
officials of the defendants came to the suit land with large
police force and illegally demolished number of premises
including the boundary wall of his property and on the F
next date, i.e., 1.3.1992, the officials of the defendants
again came and threatened to take forcible possession
of the property. The suit of 'S' was dismissed by the Civil
Judge with the findings that the suit land belonged to
Gaon Sabha and with the urbanization of the rural area G
of the village the same automatically vested in the Central
Government and that the plaintiff encroached the same.
The appeal filed by 'S' was dismissed by Additional
District Judge, Delhi who held that the suit land belonged
to Gaon Sabha and that after vesting of the land in it, the H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Central Government had transferred the same to the ODA.
During the pendency of the aforementioned two
suits, appellant No.1- company and appellant No.2-'L'
filed third suit being Suit No.313 of 2000 (renumbered as
Suit No.473 of 2004) for grant of a declaration that the
B entries made in the revenue records in respect of land
comprised in khasra Nos.2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3
situated in the revenue estate of Mehrauli, village Mehrauli
Kishangarh, Tehsil Mehrauli were wrong and illegal. The
appellants further prayed for grant of a decree of
C mandatory injunction directing the respondents to
correct the revenue record and enter their names in the
columns of ownership and possession. Another prayer
made by the appellants was for restraining the
respondents, their servants and agents from demolishing
D the superstructures and sealing or interfering with their
possession of the suit property or running of the
restaurant. In the written statement filed on behalf of the
DOA, several objections were taken to the maintainability
of the suit as also on merits. The trial Court held that the
E plaintiffs (appellants) succeeded in showing that
appellant No.2 and his brothers had purchased land
comprised in khasra Nos. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3,
but they could not prove that the land on which appellant
No.1 was running 'Sahara Restaurant' was a part of
F those khasra numbers or that they were otherwise in
lawful possession of the suit land. The trial Court then
held that the suit was barred by time because cause of
action had accrued 16 years ago when the suit land was
transferred to the DOA. The trial Court also held that the
G appellants had not approached the Court with clean
hands inasmuch as they suppressed material facts
relating to the vesting of the suit land in the Central
Government and transfer thereof to the DOA and the.
documents like Aks Sijra, site plan and demarcation
report as also the facts relating to the acquisition of an
H
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 303
UNION OF INDIA
area of 1512 square yards forming part of khasra No.2728/ A
1674/3 and receipt of compensation at the rate of Rs.50/
- per square yard. The trial Court also held that the suit
was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC. The
appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the
Single Judge of the High Court. Hence the present B
appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes time
limit for all conceivable suits, appeals etc. Section 20)" of C
that Act defines the expression "period of limitation" to
mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule
for suit, appeal or application. Section 3 lays down that
every suit instituted, appeal preferred or application made
after the prescribed period shall, subject to the
provisions of Sections 4 to 24, be dismissed even though D
limitation may not have been set up as a defence. If a suit
is not covered by any specific article, then it would fall
within the residuary article. In other words, the residuary
article is applicable to every kind of suit not otherwise
provided for in the Schedule. [Para 21) (323-D-F] E
1.2. Article 58 of the 1963 Act has bearing on the
decision of this appeal. While enacting Article 58 of the
1963 Act, the legislature has designedly made a departure
from the language of Article 120 of the Indian Limitation F
Act, 1908. The differences which are discernible from the
language of Article 58 of the 1963 Act and Article 120 of
the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 are: (i) The period of
limitation prescribed under Article 120 of the 1908 Act
was six years whereas the period of limitation prescribed G
under the 1963 Act is three years and, (ii) Under Article
120 of the 1908 Act, the period of limitation commenced
when the right to sue accrues. As against this, the period
prescribed under Article 58 begins to run when the right
to sue first accrues. [Paras 22, 24 and 27) (323-G; 324-F-
G; 325-A] H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 1.3. The word 'first' has been used between the
words "sue' and ·accrued'. This would mean that if a suit
is based on multiple causes of action, the period of
limitation will begin to run from the date when the right
to sue first accrues. To put it differently, successive
B violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and
the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the
period of limitation counted from the day when the right
to sue first accrued. [Para 27] (325-G-H; 326-A]
C . Rajinder Kakkar v. Delhi Development Authority 54
(1994) DLT 484 - referred to.
Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Kok/an AIR 1930 PC 270; Annama/ai
Chettiar v. A.M.K.C. T. Muthukaruppan Chettiar (1930) I.LR.
8 Rang. 645; Gobinda Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh
D (1930-31) L.R. 58 I.A. 125 - referred to.
Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan (1960) 2 SCR 253 -
cited.
2.1. In the instant case, the appellants have not
E controverted the fact that in the written statement filed on
behalf of the DOA in Suit No.2576 of 1990- Lal Chand v.
MCD and another, it was clearly averred that the suit land
belonged to Gaon Sabha and with the urbanisation of the
rural areas of village Kishangarh vide notification dated
F 28.5.1966 issued under Section 507 of the DMC Act, the
same automatically vested in the Central Government and
that vide notification dated 20.8.1974 issued under
Section 22(1) of the DD Act, the Central Government
transferred the suit land to the ODA for development and
G maintaining as Green. This shows that that the right, If
any, of the appellants over the suit land stood violated
with the issue of notification under Section 507 of the
DMC Act and, in any case, with the issue of notification
under Section 22(1) of the DD Act. Even if the appellants
H were to plead ignorance about the two notifications, it is
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 305
UNION OF INDIA
impossible to believe that they did not know about the A
violation of their so-called right over the suit land despite
the receipt of copy of the written statement filed on behalf
of the DOA in December, 1990. Therefore, the cause of
action will be deemed to have accrued to the appellants
in December, 1990 and the suit filed on 14.2.2000 was B
clearly barred by time. [Para 28] [326-B-E]
2.2. The issue deserves to be considered from
another angle. Although, Suit No.313/2000 was cleverly
drafted to convey an impression that the right to sue
accrued to the appellants in November/December, 1998 C
when they learnt about the wrong recording of entries in
Khasra Girdawris/Revenue Records, bvt if the averments
are read in conjunction with the pleadings of the earlier
suits, falsity of the appellants' claim that the cause of
action accrued to them in November/Decem.ber, 1998 is D
established beyond ahy doubt. In the first suit filed by
him, appellant No.2-'L' had pleaded that the cause of
action accrued on 10.8.1990 when the officials of the
respondents came to the suit premises and threatened
to demolish the same. In the second suit filed by 'S' E
(brother of appellant No.2-'L'), it was claimed that the
cause of action accrued on 29.2.1992 when the officials
of the respondents demolished the boundary wall of the
property on the ground that the same was Gaon Sabha
land. The appellants have not explained starking F
contradictions in the averments contained in three suits
on the issue of cause of action and in the absence of
cogent explanation, it must be held that the statement
contained in the suit no.303/2000 was per se false and,
as a matter of fact, the cause of action had first accrued G
to the appellants on 10.8.1990 when their so called right
over the suit land was unequivocally threatened by the
respondents. Therefore, the suit filed by the appellants
on 14.2.2000 was clearly beyond the period of limitation
of 3 years prescribed under Article 58 of the 1963 Act and H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A was barred by time. [Para 29) [326-F-H; 327-A-D]
2.3. What is most surprising is that even though
appellant No.2 - 'L' was cited as the first witness in the
suit of 2000, he did not step into the witness box. This
appears to be a part of calculated strategy. He knew that
B if he was to appear as a witness, it will not be possible
for him to explain the apparent contradictions in the
pleadings of the three suits on the issue of cause of
action and falsity of the averments contained in suit
no.303/2000 will be exposed. This is an additional reason
C for holding that the trial Court and the High Court did not
commit any error by recording a conclusion that the suit
was barred by limitation. [Para 32) [331-C-DJ
3.1. The conclusion recorded by the trial Court that
D the appellants failed to prove that the suit land formed
part of khasra Nos. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 does not
suffer from any error because they did not adduce any
evidence to establish that the land on which restaurant
was being run formed part of those khasra numbers .
.E [Para 34) (335-A-C]
3.2. The findings and conclusions recorded by the
trial Court that the appellants had not approached the
Court with clean hands inasmuch as they withheld Aks
Sijra, site plan and the demarcation report and award
F Exhibit PW4/1 are also approved. Not only this, they
· raised illegal construction despite the injunction order
passed by the High Court and that too without obtaining
permission from the competent authority. [Para 35) (335-
C-D]
G
4. The appellants, who not only made encroachment
on the public land, but also abused the process of the
Court are saddled with cost, which Is quantified at Rs.5
lacs. Of this, Rs.2.5 lacs be deposited with the Supreme
H Court Legal Services Committee within two months. The
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 307
UNION OF INDIA
oalance amount of Rs.2.5 lacs be deposited with the A
Delhi State Legal Services Committee within the same
period. If the appellants fall to deposit the cost, the
Secretaries of the two Legal Services Committees shall
be entitled to recover the same as arrears of land
revenue. [Para 37] [335-F-G] B
Case Law Reference
54 (1994) DLT 484 r~ferred to Para 17
(1960) 2 SCR 253 cited Para 18
c
AIR 1930 PC 270 referred to Para 25
(1930) l.L.R. 8 Rang. 645 referred to Para 26
(1930-31) L.R. 58 I.A. 125 referred to Para 26
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7773 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.8.2009 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No. 123 of 2009.
E
Harin P. Raval, ASG, Mukul Rohtagi, Amrendra Saran,
Sushi! Kumar Jain, Ashish Aggarwal, Anuradha Jain, M.C.
Dhingra, Ashwani Kumar, Iii Sharma, Indra Sawhney, Naresh
Kaushik, Sushma Suri, Harsh N. Parekh, Anando Mukherjee
for the appearing parties. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal for setting aside judgment dated G
21.8.2009 of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants
against the judgment and decree passed by Adciitional District
Judge-13 (Central), Delhi (hereinafter described as, 'the trial
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Court') in a suit for declaration of title, mandatory and
permanent injunction filed by them.
3. The suit land belonged to Gao.n Sabha of village
Kishangarh and formed part of the revenue estate of that village.
B By notification dated 28.5.1966 issued under Section 507(a)
of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short, 'the
DMC Act'), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short, 'the
. Corporation'), with the previous approval of the Central
Government, declared that the localities mentioned in the
Schedule f<?rming part of the rural areas shall cease to be the
C rural areas. The area of village Kishangarh (Mehrauli) was
shown at serial No.37 under the heading "South Zone Delhi".
As a consequence of this and by virtue of Section 150(3) of
the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Land Reforms
Act'), the suit land stood automatically vested in the Central
D Government. After 8 years, the same was transferred by the
Central Government to the Delhi Development Authority (for
short, 'the DOA') vide notification dated 20.8.1974 issued
under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for
short, 'the DD Act') for the purpose of development and
E maintenance as Green. The relevant portions of that notification
are extracted below:
"MINISTRY OF WORKS & HOUSING
New Delhi, the 20th August, 1974
F
S.O. 2190 - - - Whereas the terms and conditions
upon which nazul lands specified in the schedule annexed
below will be taken over by the Delhi Development
Authority have been agreed upon between the Central
G Government and the Authority.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Delhi Development
Act, 1957 (61 of 1957), the Central Government hereby
places with immediate effect, the lands which had vested
H
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 309
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
in the Central Government on the urb::inization of the A
villages specified in the said Schedule at the disposal of
the Delhi Development Authority for the purpose of
development and maintenance of the said lands as green
and for taking such steps as may be required to serve the
said purpose, subject to the condition that the Delhi B
Development Authority shall not make, or cause, or permit
to be made any constructions on the said lands and shall
when required by the Central Government so to do, replar.e
the said lands or any portion thlireof as may be so
required, at the disposal of the Central Government. c
SCHEDULE
Sr.No. Name of the Village
17. Mehrauli (Kishangarh) D
(F.No.13021/370-11)
S.CHAUDHARY
Jt. Secy." E
4. Appellant No.2-Lal Chand and his three brothers,
namely, S/Shri Ran Singh, Dhannu and Surat Singh, who claim
to have purchased land comprised in khasra Nos.2728/1674/
·2 and 2728/1674/3 total measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas from Om
Prakash and Mahinder Pal (sons of Parma Nand), Tej Nath, Tej F
Prakash, Gokal Chand and Ram Ohan by registered sale deed
dated 15.10.1963 encroached upon the suit land, raised
construction and started a restaurant under the name and style
"Sahara Restaurant".
5. With a view to secure judicial approval of the illegal G
occupation of the suit land, appellant No.2 - Lal Chand filed
Suit No. 2576/1990 in the Delhi High Court for grant of
permanent injunction against the Corporation and the ODA by
asserting that he is the co-owner of house No.80, Ward No.IX,
Kishangarh, Mehrauli, which forms part of khasra No.1674 and H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.1963;
that the suit premises comprise of 3 rooms and one hall
surrounded by a boundary wall; that the entire superstructure
is in existence for last over 15 years; that he has been residing
in the suit premises and is paying property tax since 1968-69;
8 that the suit land has not been acquired; that the officials of the
Corporation and the ODA came to the suit premises along with
the Tahsildar on 10.8.1990 without serving any notice and
threatened to demolish the superstructure on the ground that
the same is unauthorized. According to appellant No.2, when
c he questioned the jurisdiction of the Corporation and the ODA
to take action for demolition of the structures, the officials went
away with the threat that they will come again with the police
force and demolish the same. Paragraph 10 of the plaint and
prayer (a), which have bearing on the decision of this appeal
0 are reproduced below:
·10. That the cause of action accrued in favour of the
plaintiff against the defendants on 10.8.1990 when the
offi.;ials of the defendants came to the suit premises and
threatened to demolish the same. The cause of action is
E continuing till the threat of the defendants to demolish the
suit property persists."
Prayer
"(a) That a decree of permanent injunction be granted in
F favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining
the defendants, their officers, servants, representatives and
agents from dispossessing, interfering in the possession
of the plaintiff and from demolishing or sealing, any part
of existing structure at House No.80, Ward IX, Kishan
G Garh, Mehrauli New Delhi more particularly shown red in
the plan annexed to the plaint.·
E. In the written statement filed on behalf of the DOA, it was
averred that the suit land belonged to Gaon Sabha and with
H the urbanization of rural areas of Kishangarh, the same
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 311
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
automatically vested in the Central Government. It was further A
averred that vide notification dated 20.8.1974, the Central
Government had transferred the suit land to the ODA and the
plaintiff has no right, title or interest in !_he same. The relevant
portions of the written statement are extracted below:
B
"PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1. That the suit as filed is false, frivolous and not
maintainable. The plaintiff has no legal right to file the
present suit. The land forms a part of Khasra No.1674 of
Village-Mehrauli. This land belo g to the Gram Sabha and C
on the urbanization of Village-Mehrauli, all the Gram Sabha
land vested in the Central Govt. and the Central Govt., later
transferred this land at the disposal of the defendant-
D.D.A. vide notification No.S.O. 2190 dated 20.8.1974.
Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has no right, title or D
interest in the property. In this view of the matter, this suit
may be dismissed.
PARAWISE REPLY ON MERITS.
1. That the contents of para-1 are wrong and denied. It is E
denied that the plaintiff is a co-owner of the premises
commonly known as House No.80, Ward-IX, Kishan Garh,
Mehrauli, New Delhi forming part of Khasra No.1674. It is
further denied that the plaintiff purchased the suit property
vide sale deed dated 10.10.63. It is submitted that as per F
the sale deed dated 10.10.65 supplied by the plaintiff, the
suit land forms a part of Khasra No.1674 of Village-
Mehrauli. The Sale deed is in respect of Khasra No.2728/
1674/2(3-3) and 2728/1674/3(1-1) of Village-Mehrauli.
Both these Khasras are a part of the Gram Sabha land. G
On the urbanization of Village-Mehrauli (Kishangarh), all
the Gram Sabha land vested in the Central Govt. and later
on the C,entral Government transferred this Gram Sabha
land at the disposal of ODA for maintenance as green
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A development vide notification No.S.O. 2190 dated
20.8.1974. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has no
right or title in the land. It is further submitted that, recently
the plaintiff has unauthorisedly occupied this land and
constructed a boundary wall on it with 3 temporary rooms.
B It is submitted that the plaintiff has not annexed any site-
plan to the plant, as alleged by him.
2. That the contents of para 2 are wrong and hence denied.
It is submitted that the construction of the suit land is recent
and unauthorized. It is denied that the superstructure over
c the suit land has been in existence for the last 15 years. It
is further denied that the tin shed and 2 rooms over the
land were constructed sometime in the year 1959-60.
4. That the contents of para-4 are again wrong and
D therefore denied. It is submitted that the suit land belongs
to the DOA. It is further submitted that previously, the land
formed a part of Khasra No.2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/
3, which was a part of the Gram Sabha land. At the time
of urbanization of Village-Mehrauli, the Gram Sabha land
E vested in the Central Govt. and later, the Central Govt.
transferred this Gram Sabha land at the disposal of D.D.A.
vide notification No.S.0.2190 dated 20.8.1974. It is
submitted that there is no requirement of any acquisition
proceedings in respect of this land, the land being at the
F disposal of defendant-D.D.A. In this view of the matter it
is submitted that, no notification for acquisition need be
issued. It is further submitted that as the land does not
belong to the plaintiff, he is not entitled to be given any
compensation whatsoever."
G 7. On 20.8.1990, the High Court granted interim injunction,
which was confirmed vide order dated 14.7.1998. Thereafter,
the suit was transferred to District Judge, Delhi, who assigned
the same to Civil Judge, Delhi for disposal. After considering
the pleadings of the parties, the Civil Judge framed the following
H issues:
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 313
UNION OF INDiA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"1. Whether the plaintiff is co-owner of H.No.80, A
Kishangarh, Mehrauli (part of Kh. No. 1674) as alleged in
para 1 of the plaint? OPP. .
2. Whether the plaintiff is in occupation of the suit premises
for the last 15 years as alleged? OPP.
B
3. Whether the plaintiff has any legal right to file the present
suit? OPP.
4. Whether the suit is barred under Sections 477/478 of
the DMC Act? OPD. C
5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD.
6. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try
the present suit? OPD.
D
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
OPP.
8. Relief."
8. Appellant No.2 did not appear in the witness box. E
Instead, one of his sons, namely, Vinod Kumar Khatri gave
evidence as PW-2 in the capacity of the power of attorney. Two
other witnesses examined in favour of the suit were Prem
Prakash (PW-1) from the office of Kanungo and Shri Kulwant
Singh (PW-3), Assistant Zonal Inspector. On behalf of the DOA, F
Prem Chand (Tehsildar) was examined as DW-1, Constable
Prabhu Singh of Police Station Vasant Kunj was examined as
DW-2 and Khem Chand (Patwari) as DW-3.
9. After considering the pleadings of the parties and
evidence produced by them, the learned Civil Judge dismissed G
the suit vide judgment dated 3.3.2003 by observing that the
plaintiff has failed to prove that he and his brothers were owners
of the suit land. The learned Civil Judge also held that the
plaintiff was not entitled to relief of injunction because the suit
filed for determination of title of the disputed land was pending H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A adjudication. The findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge
on issue Nos. 3, 6 and 7 read as under:
"12. Issue No.3.6 and 7:-All these issues being connected
together are discussed together. PW1 has proved the
khasra girdawari but it may be mentioned that khasra
B
girdawari is not the document of title. Even these khasra
girdawari are for the year 1957-59, which are prior to the
urbanization of viii. Kishan Garh and same also shows that
the land is shamlat land. DW1 deposed that viii. Kishan
Garh was urbanized vide notification ExDW1/2 and land
c was placed at the disposal of DOA vide notification
ExDW1/1. Nothing material has come out of the cross
examination of DW1. DW3 is another Patwari from Halka
Mehrauli who also deposed that as per khasrra paimaish
it is the document of title the land belongs to gaon sabha
D and same has been transferred to DOA. He proved the
certified copy of record as ExDW3/1 which also shows
that the land belongs to the gaon sabha and has been
placed at the disposal of ODA. PW2 who is the attorney
of plaintiff himself has admitted that in the correction of
E revenue record they have also filed suit in the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi. Thus, there is admission on the part of
plaintiff himself that at present in the revenue record the
plaintiff or his predecessor interest have no right title and
the land belongs to the gaon sabha which has been
F transferred to ODA. Nothing material has come out of the
cross examination of DW3 and merely because the user
of the land has been shown as gair mumkin pahar and gair
mumkin abadi does not make much difference as the
main controversy is regarding the ownership that the land
G belongs to the gaon sabha and as such plaintiff has failed
to prove his right, title over the same. There is also a
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Rajender Kakkar
v. ODA CW No. 3355/93 it is also for the village Kishan
Garh in the revenue estate of Mehrauli in that judgment also
H
the Hon'ble High Court has held that whole of viii. Kishan
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 315
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Garh was urbanized and after urbanization as per sec. 150 A
of DLR Act the land whole of gaon sabha ceases to be
the rural area and the land belongs to gaon sabha in viii.
Kishan Garh vested with the Central Govt. and the Central
govt. vide notification dt. 20.8.74 placed same at the
disposal of ODA. In this authoritative pronouncement also B
the Hon'ble High Court held that petitioners have no right
title over the land and it was further held that :
'Time has now come where the society and the law
abiding citizens are being held to ransom by
persons who have no respect of law. The wheels C
of justice grind.slowly and the violators of law are
seeking to the advantage of the laws delays. That
is why they insist on the letter of the law being
complied with by the respondents while at the same
time showing their complete contempt for the laws D
themselves. Should there not be a change in the
judicial approach or thinking when dealing with
such problems which have increased in recent
years viz., large scale encroachment on public land
and unauthorized construction thereon, most of E
which could not have taken place without such
encroachers getting blessing or tacit approval from
the powers that be including the municipal or the
local employees. Should the courts give protection
to violators of the law? The answer in our opinion F
must be in negative. Time has come when the
courts have to be satisfied, before they interfere
with the action taken or proposed to be taken by
the governmental authorities qua removal of
encroachment or sealing or demolishing G
unauthorized construction specially when such
construction like the present, is commercial in
nature.'
H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A 13. In the present case also the plaintiffs have failed to show
their right, title or interest over the land in dispute. In such
circumstances as the plaintiff has failed to show his legal
right over the land in dispute therefore, plaintiff is mere
encroacher upon the Govt. land. It seems that under the
B garb of present suit the plaintiffs are indirectly challenging
the notification by which the village Kishan Garh was
urbanized or land was placed at the disposal of DOA. But
it may be mentioned that this court has no jurisdiction to
try cases challenging Govt. notification to place the land
c at the disposal of DOA.
14. Furthermore, the plaintiff has already filed suit in the
Hon'ble High Court challenging the entries in the revenue
records and therefore there is an admission on the part
of the plaintiff themselves that at present land is not shown
D in their ownership. Question of suffering an irreparable loss
or injury does not arise as plaintiff is already pursuing legal
remedy available to them by challenging the revenue
record. It is well settled principle of law that no injunction
can be grand against a true owner. In the present case as
E the plaintiffs are mere encroacher upon the DOA land as
on todays date therefore they are not entitled for any relief
as prayed by them. As such, all these issues are decided
against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant."
F 10. RFA No.651 of 2003 filed by appellant No.2 was
disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order
dated 24.11.2008, the operative portion of which reads as
under:
"In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no
G interference is called for as far as the impugned judgment
and decree is concerned, save and except to record that
nothing stated in the impugned judgment and decree
dated 3.3.2003 pertaining to the issues of title would be
construed as bindin~ between the parties; needless to
H state the title dispute riould be adjudicated in the suit filed
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 317
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
by the appellant by the learned Judge who is seized of the A
suit as per evidence before the learned Judge and law
applicable."
11. In the meanwhile, Surat Singh, one of the brothers of
appellant No.2, filed another suit for injunction against the
8
Corporation and the ODA. He claimed that he is the co-owner
of land measuring 1200 square yards forming part of khasra
No. 1674, village Kishangarh. He pleaded that the premises
were surrounded by a boundary wall and till January 1991 the
same were being used for tethering cattle by one Ved Prakash. C
He alleged that on 29.2.1992, the officials of the defendants
came to the suit land with large police force and illegally
demolished number of premises including the boundary wall of
his property and on the next date, i.e., 1.3.1992, the officials of
the defendants again came and threatened to take forcible
possession of the property. D
12. The suit of Shri Shri Surat Singh was dismissed by the
Civil Judge vide judgment dated 1.5.2004 with the findings that
the suit land belonged to Gaon Sabha and with the urbanization
of the rural area of the village the same automatically vested in E
the Central Government and that the plaintiff encroached the
same. The appeal filed by Surat Singh was dismissed by
Additional District Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 5.8.2004.
The lower appellate Court held that as per Khatoni Paimaish
Exhibit DW1 /2, the suit land was a waste land being F
Gairmumkin Pahar and the same belonged to Gaon Sabha and
that after vesting of the land in it, the Central Government had
transferred the same to the DOA. Paragraph 6 of that judgment
is reproduced below:
"6. the Appellant claims himself the coowner of the land, G
forming part of the khasra no.1674, Village Kishangar on
the basis of the Sale Deed dated 10.10.1963. A
· photocopy of the Sale Deed was placed· on the record by
the Appellant through which the Appellant along with the
others claims to have purchased 4 bighas and 4 biswas H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A of land bearing Khasra No.2728/167/4 and 2728/167/3.
As per the scheme of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
(for short the DLR Act) on coming into the force of the DLR
Act the proprietor of the agricultural land seized to exist. If
any land was the part of the holding of a proprietor, he
B became the Bhumidar of it, if it was the part of the holding
of some other person, such as a tenant or sub-tenant etc.
he became either a Bhumidar or an Asami whereupon the
rights of the proprietor in that land ceased. The land which
was not holding of either of the proprietor or any other
c person vested in Gaon Sabha. A perusal of Kahatoni
Paimaish, Ex.DW1/2 would show that the suit land was a
waste land that is Gairmumkin Pahar in Union of India v.
Sher Singh & Ors. II (1997) CLT 58, it was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that except the land which
for the time being comprised the holding or a grove whether
D
cultivable or otherwise, vests in Gaon Sabha from the date
of commencement of the Act. The onus was on the
appellant to show that the suit land was a part of the
holding or a grove and the predecessors of the appellant
had become a 'Bhumidar' in respect of the suit land on
E coming into force of the DLR Act. A notification dated
3.6.1977 was issued by the government under Section 507
of the DMC Act whereby, the area of Kishan Garh in the
revenue estate of Mehrauli was urbanized, consequently in
accordance with the provisions of Section 150(3) of DLR
F Act, the land which. had vested in Gaon Sabha came to vest
in the Central Government on urbanization of the village.
The Central Government, vide notification under Section
22(1) of the DD Act Dated 20.8.1974 (Ex DW1/1) had
placed the entire land which had vested in the Central
G Government, on the urbanization of the village specified in
the schedule, at the disposal of the DDA for the purpose
of development and maintenance of the said land.
Therefore, all land, including the suit land which had vested
in Gaon Sabha, came to vest·in the Central Government
H and was ultimately placed at the disposal of the ODA.•
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 319
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
13. During the pendency of the aforementioned two suits, A
appellant No.1 which is said to have been incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 in 1994-95 with Harbir Singh Khatri
another son of Lal Chand as its Managing Director and
appellant No.2-Lal Chand filed third suit being Suit No.313 of
2000 (renumbered as Suit No.473 of 2004) for grant of a B
declaration that the entries made in the revenue records in
respect of land comprised in khasra Nos.2728/1674/2 and
2728/1674/3 situated in the revenue estate of Mehrauli, village
Mehrauli Kishangarh, Tehsil Mehrauli are wrong and illegal. The
appellants further prayed for grant of a decree of mandatory c
injunction directing the respondents to correct the revenue
record and enter their names in the columns of ownership and
possession. Another prayer made by the appellants was for
restraining the respondents, their servants and agents from
demolishing the superstructures and sealing or interfering with
0
their possession of the suit property or running of the restaurant.
14. In the written statement filed on behalf of the DOA,
several objections were taken to the maintainability of the suit
including the following:
E
(i) The plaintiffs have not challenged notification dated
20.8.1974vide which the Central Government
transferred the suit land tothe ODA.
(ii) The suit was barred by limitation because the same
has beenfiled after 16 years of the accrual of cause_ F
of action.
(iii) The suit 1s barred by the provisions of Order II Rule
2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
G
(iv) The plaintiffs not only made encroachment on the
suit land, but also abused the process of Court by
filing different sµits.
On merits, it was pleaded that the suit land belonged to
H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Gaon Sabha and with the urbanization of village Kishangarh,
the same automatically vested in the Central Government. It was
further pleaded that the appellants do not have any right, titb
or interest in the suit land and they do not have the locus to
question the revenue entries. Another plea raised on behalf of
B the ODA was that the suit was barred by limitation.
15. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed
the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff no.2 along with his brother is
c the owner and in possession of suit land?
2. Whether the suit land is a government land as
alleged in para no.1 of the preliminary objections?
If so, whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on
D this ground?
3. Whether the suit is within limitation?
4. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2
CPC?
E
5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court
with clean hands and are not entitled to the
equitable relief of injunction as stated in para VI of
the preliminary objections?
F 6. Whether the suit land is a government land was
placed at the disposal of the DOA under Section
22(1) of the ODA vide notification dated
20.08.1974?
G 7. Relief."
16. On a comprehensive analysis of the pleadings and
evidence of the parties, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs
(appellants herein) have succeeded in showing that appellant
No.2 and his brothers had purchased land comprised in khasra
H
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 321
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Nos. 2728/1674/2 and 272811674/3, but they could not prove A
that the land on which appellant No.1 was running 'Sahara
Restaurant' is a part of those khasra numbers or that they were
otherwise in lawful possession of the suit land. The trial Court
then held that the suit was barred by time because cause of
action had accrued 16 years ago wl-ien the suit land was B
transferred to the DOA. The trial Court also held that the
appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands
inasmuch as they suppressed material facts relating to the
vesting of the suit land in the Central Government and transfer
thereof to the ODA and the documents like Aks Sijra, site plan c
and demarcation report as also the facts relating to the
acquisition of an area of 1512 square yards forming part of
khasra No.2728/1674/3 and receipt of compensation at the rate
of Rs.SO/- per square yard. The trial Court returned affirmative
finding on issue No.4 and held that the suit was barred by the
0
provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC.
17. The appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who relied upon
the judgment of the Division Bench in Rajinder Kakkar v. Delhi
Development Authority 54 (1994) DLT 484 and held that with E
the issuance of notification under Section 507, Gaon Sabha
land of Kishangarh automatically vested in the Central
Government and transfer thereof to the ODA was valid. The
learned Single Judge also agreed with the trial Court that the
suit was barred by limitation and that the appellants had not F
approached the Court with clean hands.
18. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants extensively referred to the evidence produced
by the parties to show that the land in question was Shamlat G
Thok and argued that such land does not vest in Gaon Sabha.
Learned senior counsel further argued that the notification
issued under Section 507 of the DMC Act and the provision
contained in Section 150(3) of the Land Reforms Act have no
bearing on the appellants' case because the suit land did not H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A belong to Gaon Sabha and the trial Court and the High Court
committed serious error by recording a finding that the suit land
automatically vested in the Central Government and that the
same was validly transferred to the ODA. Shri Rohtagi pointed
out that the suit land was owned by Smt. Kasturi widow of
B Jhuman Singh and Rattan Lal son of Trikha Ram, who sold it
to S/Shri Parma Nand, Tej Nath, Tej Prakash, Gokal Chand and
Ram Ohan by registered sale deed dated 7.10.1959 and legal
heirs of Parma Nand and other vendees sold the same to
appellant No.2 and his brothers vide sale deed dated
C 10.10.1963. Learned senior counsel assailed the concurrent
finding recorded by the trial Court and the High Court on the
issue of limitation and submitted that the suit filed in the year
2000 was within time because the cause of action accrued to
the appellants for the first time in 1998 when they came to know
o about the entries made in the revenue records in favour of the
DOA. In support of this argument, Shri Rohtagi relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan
(1960) 2 SCR 253.
19. Shri Harin P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor
E General and Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the DOA argued that the concurrent finding
recorded by the trial Court and the High Court that land on which
the appellants were running a restaurant does not form part of
khasra Nos. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 is a pure finding
F of fact based on correct analysis of the pleadings of the parties
and evidence produced by them and the same does not call
for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Shri
Sharan submitted that the suit filed by the appellants for
declaration of title and injunction was rightly dismissed by the
G trial Court because they had not produced any evidence to
prove that the suit land forms part of land pur.;has~ by appellant
No.2 and his brothers. Shri Sharan then argued that the suit
filed in the year 2000 was barred by limitation because the
cause of action had accrued to the appellants on 10.8.1990
H when the officials of the Corporation and the ODA are said to
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 323
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
have visited the suit premises and threatened to demolish the A
superstructure and, in any case, the cause of action accrued
to them in December 1990 when the written statement was filed
on behalf of the DDA with a categorical assertion that with the
urbanisation of the rural areas of village Kishangarh, the suit
land automatically vested in the Central Government, which B
transferred it to the DDA vide notification dated 20.8.1974.
Learned senior counsel lastly submitted that the appellants are
not entitled to any relief because they had not approached the
Court with· clean hands and suppressed material facts and
documents. c
20. We shall first consider the question whether the suit
filed by the appellants on 14.2.2000 was within limitation and
the contrary concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court and
the High Court is legally unsustainable.
D
21. The Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the 1963 Act')
prescribes time limit for all conceivable suits, appeals etc.
Section 20) of that Act defines the expression "period of
limitation" to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the
Schedule for suit, appeal or application. Section 3 lays down E
that every suit instituted, appeal preferred or application made
after the prescribed period shall, subject to the provisions of
Sections 4 to 24, be dismissed even though limitation may not
have been set up as a defence. If a suit is not covered by any
specific article, then it would fall within the residuary article. In F
other words, the residuary article is applicable to every kind of
suit not otherwise provided for in the Schedule.
22. Article 58 of the 1963 Act, which has bearing on the
decision of this appeal, reads as under:
G
H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A "THE SCHEDULE
PERIODS OF LIMITATION
[See sections 20) and 3]
FIRST DIVISION - SUITS
B
Description of suit Period of Time from which
limitation period begins to run
PART Ill - SUITS RELATING TO DECLARATIONS
c 58. To obtain any other Three years When the right to sue
declaration first accrues."
23. Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (for short,
'the 1908 Act') which was interpreted in the judgment relied
D upon by Shri Rohtagi reads as under:
"Description of suit Period of Time from which
limitation period begins to run
120. Suit for which no Six years When the right to sue
E period of limitation is accrues."
provided elsewhere
in this Schedule.
right to sue accrues."
F 24. The differences which are discernible from the
language of the above reproduced two articles are:
(i) The period of limitation prescribed under Article
120 of the 1908 Act was six years whereas the
period of limitation prescribed under the 1963 Act
G
is three years and,
(ii) Under Article 120 of the 1908 Act, the period of
limitation commenced when the right to sue
accrues. As against this, the period prescribed
H
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 325
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
under Article 58 begins to run when the right to sue A
first accrues.
25. Article 120 of the 1908 Act was interpreted by the
Judicial Committee in Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Kok/an AIR 1930 PC 270
and it was held: B
"There can be no 'right to sue' until there is an accrual of
the right asserted in the suit and its infringement, or at least,
a clear or unequivocal threat to infringe that right, by the
defendant against whom the suit is instituted."
c
26. The same view was reiterated in Annamalai Chettiar
v. A.M.K.C. T. Muthukaruppan Chettiar (1930) I.LR. 8 Rang.
645 and Gobinda Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh (1930-
31) L.R. 58 I.A. 125. In Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan (supra),
the three-Judge Bench noticed the earlier judgments and D
summed up the legal position in the following words:
"The right to sue under Article 120 of the 1908 Act accrues
when the defendant has clearly or unequivocally threatened
to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit.
Every threat by a party to such a right, however ineffective E
or innocuous it may be, cannot be considered to be a clear
and unequivocal threat so as to compel him to file a suit.
Whether a particular threat gives rise to a compulsory
cause of action depends upon the question whether that
threat effectively invades or jeopardizes the said right." F
27. While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the
legislature has designedly made a departure from the language
of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The word 'first' has been used
between the words 'sue' and 'accrued'. This would mean that G
if a suit is basej on multiple causes of action, the period of
limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue
first accrues. To put it differently, successive violation of the right
will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be
dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the day when the right to sue first accrued.
28. In the light of the above, it is to be seen as to when the
right to sue first accrued to the appellants. They have not
controverted the fact that in the written statement filed on behalf
8 of the DDA in Suit No.2576 of 1990-Lal Chand v. MCD and
another, it was clearly averred that the suit land belonged to
Gaon Sabha and with the urbanisation of the rural areas of
village Kishangarh vide notification dated 28.5.1966 issued
under Section 507 of the DMC Act, the same automatically
C vested in the Central Government and that vide notification
dated 20.8.1974 issued under Section 22(1) of the DD Act, the
Central Government transferred the suit land to the DDA for
development and maintaining as Green. This shows that that
the right, if any, of the appellants over the suit land stood violated
with the issue of notification under Section 507 of the DMC Act
D and, in any case, with the issue of notification under Section
22(1) of the DD Act. Even if the appellants were to plead
ignorance about the two notifications, it is impossible to believe
that they did not know about the violation of their so-called right
over the suit land despite the receipt of copy of the written
E statement filed on behalf of the ODA in December, 1990.
Therefore, the cause of action will be deemed to have accrued
to the appellants in December, 1990 and the suit filed on
14.2.2000 was clearly barred by time .
..
F 29. The issue deserves to be considered from another
angle. Although, paragraph 19 of Suit No. 303/2000 was
cleverly drafted to convey an impression that the right to sue
accrued to the appellants in November/December, 1998 when
they learnt about the wrong recording of entries in Khasra
G Girdawris/Revenue Records, but if the averments contained in
that paragraph are read in conjunction with the pleadings of the
earlier suits, falsity of the appellants' claim that the cause of
action accrued to them in November/December, 1998 is
established beyond any doubt. In the first suit filed by him,
H appellant No.2-Lal Chand had pleaded that the cause of action
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 327
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
accrued on 10.8.1990 when the officials of the respondents A
came to the suit premises and threatened to demolish the
same. In the second suit filed by Surat Singh (brother of
appellant No.2-Lal Chand), it was claimed that the cause of
action accrued on 29.2.1992 when the officials of the
respondents demolished the boundary wall of the property on 8
the ground that the same was Gaon Sabha land. The appellants
have not explained starking contradictions in the averments
contained in three suits on the issue of cause of action and in
the absence· of cogent explanation, it must be held that the
statement contained in paragraph 19 of Suit No.313 of 2000 C
was per se false and, as a matter of fact, the cause of action
had first accrued to the appellants on 10.8.1990 when their so
called right over the suit land was unequivocally threatened by
the respondents. Therefore, the suit filed by the appellants on
14.2.2000 was clearly beyond the period of limitation of 3 years D
prescribed under Article 58 of the 1963 Act and was barred .
by time.
30. While considering the question whether the suit was
barred by time, the trial Court noticed the averments contained
in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint that during the course of E
preparation of the trial of Suit No. 2576/1990 - Lal Chand v.
MCD and another, the appellants applied for a copy of Khasra
Girdawaris of the suit land and they were shocked to learn that
the revenue records have been incorrectly maintained and they
were neither shown as owners/bhumidars nor in possession of F
the suit land, referred to the pleadings of the suit filed by
appellant No.2 - Lal Chand in 1990 and observed:
"Therefore, as per the pleadings that the cause of action
accrued when according to plaintiff he applied for the G
copies of the Khasra Nos which was in Nov.-Dec, 1998
during the course of trial in the earlier suit.
This claim of the plaintiff however does not appear to be
factually correct. It is evident from the judgment dated
03.03.2003 that the detailed written statement had been H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A filed by the DOA before the Ld. Civil Judge when the suit
filed by Lal Chand Plaintiff No.2 on 18.08.1990 wherein
the DOA had specifically pleaded that the land form part
of Khasra No.2728/1674/2 & 2728/1674/3 situated in the
revenue estate of village Kishangarh, Teh Mehrauli, New
B Delhi and the urbanization of village Mehrauli, all the Gaon
Sabha land vested in the central govt, but later on
transferred this land at the disposal of the defendant DOA
for development and maintenance as green, vide
notification dated 20.08 1974 and the plaintiff has no right,
title or interest over the suit land. It was further pleaded
c that the plaintiff had wrongly and unauthorizedly occupied
the land and constructed the boundary wall alongwith three
temporary room which construction was unauthorized and
it was denied that the suit property existed for the last 16
years. It is further evident from the said judgment that after
D the plaintiff filed the replication continuing the aforesaid
issue were framed by the Ld. Civil Judge on 11.03.1997.
This being so, it is unbelievable that the date of
koowledge by the plaintiff was of Nov-Dec, 1998. Rather
the plaintiffs were fully aware of the land being at the
E disposal of the ODA from the proceeding in suit No.2111
02190 when the DOA filed its written statement when the
limitation started to run more so as the plaintiff No.2 had
a/so filed replication continuing the aforesaid and
therefore as per the provisions of the /imitation act, Article
F 58 of the schedule, challenging to the same should have
been made within the period of limitation which is within
3 years from the date of knowledge and limitation which
has started running, it is not extended by the plaintiff by
obtaining certified copy or by giving notice to the
G defendants. This suit which has been filed only on
11.02.2000 is clearly not within the period of limitation of
3 years from the date when the DOA filed its written
statement in suit No.211/02/90 and the plaintiff No,2 is first
assumed to have acquired knowledge and in attempt to
H cover up this delay the plaintiff is trying to falsely create
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 329
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the cause of action in Nov-Dec, 1998 attributing the A
advantage as during the trial when he applied for the
copies of the revenue record despite the fact that the
period of limitation started to run when the written
statement was filed by DOA to which the plaintiff No.2 filed
replication pursuant to which the issue framed was, B
whether the plaintiff has any legal rights to file the present
suit. This being the case, I hereby held that the present suit
is clearly beyond the period of limitation and I decide the
issue No.3 against the plaintiff."
(emphasis supplied)
c
31. The High Court agreed with the trial Court and held that
the suit was barred by time. The reasons assigned by the High
Court for coming to this conclusion are contained in paragraphs
38 to 45, which are extracted below: D
"38. First suit filed by Lal Chand (Appellant no.2 in the
present proceedings), being suit (no. 2576 of 1990), was
suit for Injunction simplicitor. That suit was dismissed by
judgment/ order dated 3.3.2001. As per findings given in E
that suit, the Plaintiff was never the owner; the land was
Government land; the land vested in Central Government
after issuance of notification under Section 507 of DMC
Act and thereafter, the land was transferred to ODA.
39. Against dismissal of that Suit for Injunction, an appeal F
bearing (No. RFA 651/2003) was filed and this Court
disposed of the Appeal, vide order dated 24th November
2008.
40. In that suit, it was alleged in plaint that; G
"It was sometime in March 1990 that Tehsildar along with
officers of DOA came to the site of Plaintiff with
dispossession and demolition."
41. Now after 10 years, appellant being a co-owner, cannot H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A seek relief against alleged threat of demolition or
dispossession and present suit is clearly barred by
limitation.
42. In that suit in written Statement, a specific plea was
taken by answering respondent herein, that land in
B
question by virtue of issuance of notification under Section
507 of DMC Act, on urbanization, came to be vested with
Union of India and thereafter, transferred to answering
respondent. Relevant preliminary objection taken therein
the written statement is as under;
c
'That the suit as filed is false, frivolous and not
maintainable. The plaintiff has no legal right to file
the present suit. The land forms a part of Khasra
no. 1.674 of Village- Mehrauli. This land belong to
D the Gram Sabha and on the urbanization of village
Mehrauli, all the Gram Sabha land vested in the
Central Government, later transferred this land at
the disposal of the defendant DOA vide notification
No. S.O. 2190 dated 208-1974. Therefore, it is clear
E that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the
property. In this view of the matter, this suit may be
dismissed. "
43. It is also contended that second suit was filed by Surat
Singh, one of the co-owners. That was again a Suit for
F Injunction, which was dismissed and against this, an
appeal (No. RCA No. 29/2004) was preferred before
Additional District Judge on 5th August 2004 and same
was also dismissed.
G 44. The appellate court, while dismissing the suit of Surat
Singh, referred to the pleadings made in the plaint,
"That on 29-2-1992, police officials along with the
officials of DOA visited the site and proceeded to
demolish inter alia the boundary wall of the disputed
H
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 331
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
land. Clearly, therefore, the cause of action had A
matured and limitation, which necessarily
commenced from the date of the demolition of the
premises."
45. That suit was filed in 1992 and surely, a subsequent
suit by another co-owner, cannot be maintained after a B
lapse of 8 years."
32. What is most surprising is that even though appellant
No.2 - Lal Chand was cited as the first witness in Suit No.303/
2000 (renumbered as 473/2004), he did not step into the C
witness box. This appears to be a part of calculated strategy.
He knew that if he was to appear as a witness, it will not be
possible for him to explain the apparent contradictions in the
pleadings of the three suits on the issue of cause of action and.
falsity of the averments contained in paragraph 19 in Suit
No.303/2000 will be exposed. This is an additional reason for D
holding that the trial Court and the High Court did not commit
any error by recording a conclusion that the suit was barred by
limitation.
33. The next question which requires consideration is E
whether the finding recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos.1
and 2 is legally correct and the High Court rightly declined to
interfere with the same. The trial Court adverted to the pleadings
of the parties and evidence produced by them and observed:
".... The plaintiff has not placed on record any document F
nor has examined any witness to prove the location and
boundaries of the said land. It is unbelievable that sale of
the immoveable properties could have taken place without
identification of the property with regard to its location. As
per existing practice all such transactions of immoveable G
properties either bear the complete details of the
boundaries to assist location of the property sold alongwith
the site plan or is accompanied by aks-shijra. However,
in the present case this has not been done and the plaintiff
has not adduced in evidence to prove boundary of the suit H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A land. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid, I hold that
the plaintiff No.2 had purchased the land falling in Khasra
No. 27281167412 & 27281167413 but he has not been able
to prove the location of the said land comprising of
Khasra No. 27281167412 & 27281167413. The plaintiff has
B further not been able to connect the land over which the
plaintiff No. 1 is running Sahara Restaurant to the land
comprise in Khasra No. 27281167412 & 27281167413 of
which the plaintiff No.2 and his brother are stated to be
the owners.
C That the DOA has placed on record the complete area
location plan Ex.D2W114 to which there is no rebuttal. Only
simply suggestion has been given to the witness of the
defendant that the aforesaid plan is incorrect but the plaintiff
has not placed on record any other alternative plan which
D according to him, is according to plan, therefore, in these
circumstances I find no reason to discard the aforesaid
documents which shows that Sahara Restaurant has been
constructed in front of the community centre No.1, Nursery
School No.2 and Group Housing Jania Flats - 952 on the
E road and is shown to be away from abadi of village
Kishangarh, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
Annexure-A of the award Ex.PW4/1 shows that Khasra
No.2728/1674 falls in old abadi of village Kishangarh and
in these circumstances it is not possible to '.Jelieve that the
F aforesaid khasra No.2728/1674 would be located away
from the main village abadi. There it appears that the
plaintiff has deliberately tried to create confusion with
regard to the khasra No.2728/1674 and as admitted, to
show that the land on which the Sahara Restaurant is
G constructed is bearing khasra No. 2728/1674/2 and 27281
1674/3 which is no the case and apparently it was for this
reason that he has deliberately no placed on record any
site plan, aks-shijra, demarcation report made in plan
document to prove the khasra numbers.
H
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 333
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
In view of the above I hereby hold that the plaintiff has A
proved that he has purchased the land falling in Khasra No.
2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 but has not been able to
prove that the land on which the plaintiff No.1 is running
Sahara Restaurant is comprise of Khasra No. 2728/1674/
2 and 2728/1674/3 or that he is in legal possession of the B
suit land over which the Sahara Restaurant is constructed."
(emphasis supplied)
The trial Court then proceeded to observe:
"Vide my above findings with regard to issue No.1, I have C
already held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove
hat the land on which a large restaurant is made falls in
Khasra No. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 and that in fact
Khasra No. 2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 is a part of old
abadi which is situated at distance and away from the D
place where the Sahara Restaurant is constructed. The
notification u/s. 22(1) of the DDA dated 20.8.1974 which
is Ex.DWW1/2 is not disputed by both the parties. Firstly
the plaintiff has not produced any document in the form of
demarcation report or aks-shijra which show that the land E
on which Sahara Restaurant is situated false in Khasra No.
2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 and is same land which
has been purchased by the plaintiff No.2. The sale deed
so relied upon by the plaintiff is Ex.PW3/4 does not show
the boundaries and identification of the land initially sold F
by Ratan Singh and Kasturi Devi so purchased by the
plaintiff No.2 later vide Ex.PW3/3. Secondly no explanation
is forthcoming with regard to the acquisition award/
proceedings placed before this court which are Ex.PW4/
1, showing that Khasra No.1673 min(0-12) and Khasra
No. 2728/1674/3 min plus 2(14-14) then the area of 1512 G
sq. yards has been acquired with the rte of claim as Rs.50/
- per sq. yard and the compensation is awarded at
Rs.1,55,600/- in all which is in respect of acquisition of land
of Ran Singh, Dhan Singh, Lal Chand, Suraj Singh all sons
H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A of Mam Raj as shown in sl. No.66 ............ .. Annexure-A
to the award Ex.PW411 shows Khasra No. 272811674 to
be falling in old village abadi and no explanation is
forthcoming as to how the land on which Sahara
Restaurant has been constructed is situated away from
B the Abadi which according to Dx.D2W114 is constructed
on the road in front of the Group Housing Janta Flats-952,
Nursery School-II and community center-I. It is
unbelievable that khasra No.272811674 which falls in old
village abadi can be situated away from the said award.
c Fourthly, in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff No.2 in the
year 1990 before Ld. Civil Judge the plaintiff No.2 had
claimed that he is in possession of two rooms and tin shed
which he is using for residential purpose and no explanation
is forthcoming as to how this huge construction of a big
restaurant was made which is being used by the plaintiff
D
No.1 for commercial purposes. It is evident from the order
dated 24.11.2008 in RFA No.651103 that the High Court
was apprised of the earlier report of the local
commissioner in suit No.211102190 and the large scale
construction raised by the plaintiff over the said land
E despite the status quo order without the sanction of the
municipal authority. Even otherwise no permission can be
granted by the DOA for any been uncontroverted by the
plaintiff, has constructed restaurant by encroaching upon
the govt. land meant for road. Unaer the garb of the present
F suit the plaintiff are indirectly challenging notification by
which village Kishangarh was urbanized and the land was
placed at the disposal of the DOA without srecifically
challenging the same as the entries made in the revenue
record are only pursuant to the said notification. Therefore,
G in view of the aforesaid, I hereby decide this issue No.2
against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants."
(emphasis supplied)
34. Though, the High Court did not examine the issue in
H detail as was done by the trial Court, the learned Single Judge
KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 335
UNION OF INDIA [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
did make a note of the two notifications, the judgment in A
Rajinder Kakkar's case and held that by virtue of Section 150(3)
of the Land Reforms Act, the suit land automatically vested in
the Central Government and the same was transferred to the
ODA under Section 22(1) of the DD Act. In our view, the
conclusion recorded by the trial Court that the appellants have B
failed to prove that the suit land formed part of khasra Nos.
2728/1674/2 and 2728/1674/3 does not suffer from any error
because they did not adduce any evidence to establish that the
·land on which restaurant was being run formed part of those
khasra numbers. c
35. We also approve the findings and conclusions recorded
by the trial Court that the appellants had not approached the
Court with clean hands inasmuch as they withheld Aks Sijra,.
site plan and the demarcation report and awarctExhibit PW4/
1. Not only this, they raised illegal construction despite the D
injunction order passed by the High Court and that too without
obtaining permission from the competent authority.
36. In view of the above discussion, we do not consider it
necessary to deal with the question whether the suit filed by the
appellants was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC. E
37. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants,
who have not only made encroachment on the public land, but
also abused the process of the Court are saddled with cost,
which is quantified at Rs.5 lacs. Of this, Rs.2.5 lacs be F
deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
within two months from today. The balance amount of Rs.2.5
lacs be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services
Committee within the same period. If the appellants fail to
deposit the cost, the Secretaries of the two Legal Services G
Committees shall be entitled to recover the same as arrears
of land revenue.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Limitation Act"Sign in to search