W.P. (C) No. 5195/2007 Page 1 13. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5195/2007 SHIV NARAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate. versus ESTATE OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 27.01.2010 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner again states that he is not receiving instructions from his client. However, he states that he is ready to argue the matter, though he prays for two weeks adjournment to place on record copy of the title documents in favour of Mr. Moti Ram, great grandfather of the present petitioners. The statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is contradictory. 2. The petitioners had not appeared before the Estate Officer and an ex parte eviction order dated 27th February, 2003 was passed. 3. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal but did not file any document of title even before the appellate court. Request was made before the appellate court that the matter should be remanded back to enable the petitioners to establish title of their late grandfather Mr. Moti Ram. Learned Additional District Judge rejected the said contention as the petitioners had failed to file copy of the alleged document of title in favour of Mr. Moti Ram. It was observed that it would be the case of empty formality if the matter was remanded back. In spite of the said order, while filing the present writ W.P. (C) No. 5195/2007 Page 2 petition, the petitioners have not filed any document of title. I am not, therefore, inclined to grant any further adjournment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-DDA is not owner of the land. My attention was drawn to agreement dated 23rd September, 1940 and khasra numbers mentioned in the said agreement. Reference was also made to jamabandi of the property in question, which records that the property is located in khasra No. 257. 5. The said jamabandi records that the owner of the property is Sarkar Daulat Madar. Agreement dated 23rd September, 1940 was between the Governor General in Council and the Delhi Improvement Trust. By the said agreement, land mentioned in the schedule I was transferred to the trust. Schedule I records that Nazul Revenue Estates of Sadar Bazar North and South stand transferred. Where the entire revenue estate was not transferred, specific Khasra numbers and other details are mentioned. In addition to this agreement, the respondent-DDA has placed on record an earlier agreement dated 31st March, 1937 between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Delhi Improvement Trust. The second agreement dated 23rd September, 1940 refers to the earlier agreement and states that the government desires to place at the disposal of the trust land known as Bela Bir measuring 293.04 acres more or less as stated in the Schedule. Thus as per agreement dated 23rd September, 1940, entire land in Nazul Revenue Estate of Sadar Bazar North and Sadar Bazar South was transferred. 6. The question of ownership of land was examined by the learned Additional District Judge and she has observed as under:- “4.3 Even if for a while, the appellants contention that they have not been allowed to lead evidence to show their authority to occupy the said land, is considered now, it is observed that the appellants on one hand, in para no. 1 of W.P. (C) No. 5195/2007 Page 3 their appeal have stated that their great grand father Sh. Moti Ram had purchased the said land vide sale deed dated 27.11.1935. Whereas on the other hand, the appellants are claimed ownership and right to occupy the said land by virtue of their continuous adverse and hostile possession since long. The appellants have not placed on record any sale deed vide which Sh. Moti Ram had purchased the said land. In view of these facts, it is clear that the appellants are claiming ownership rights of the said property/said land on the basis of continuous and uninterrupted adverse and hostile possession. DDA on the other hand has proved Nazul agreement vide which the government land including the said property was placed under the supervision of the Delhi Improvement Trust, for orderly expansion of Delhi. DDA also proved Jamabandi and Aks Shijra. As per Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 government is the owner of the property and Sh. Babu Ram son of Sh. Moti Ram, kewal Ram s/o Banwari Lal are shown to be in unauthorized occupation of the government land. Thus, it is evident that the appellants great grand father was an unauthorized occupant of the government property/said property.” 7. There is no evidence or material placed on record by the petitioners to challenge and question the aforesaid findings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JANUARY 27, 2010. VKR/NA