Delhi High Court Dhani Ram (Thrs Lrs) vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors. on 13 April, 2018 Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 16 $~ * Reserved on : 12th January, 2018 Date of decision : 13th April, 2018 + RFA 754/2016 DHANI RAM (THRS LRS) . .... Appellant Through: Mr. Anand Yadav and Ms. Anita Tomar, Advocates. (M: 9810126454) versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Senior Advocate and Mr. Niharika Ahluwalia, Advocate. (M: 9818099957) AND + RFA 771/2016 TARA CHAND (THR LRS) ......Appellant Through: Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate. (M: 9810126454) versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ......Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia & Ms. Vasudha Trivedi, Advocates. (M: 9818099957) JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh J, 1. The present appeals arise out of a suit for damages filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs (hereinafter „Plaintiffs‟) against the Delhi RFA Nos. 754/2016 & 771/2016 Page 1 of 22 Development Authority (hereinafter „DDA‟), its Senior officers and two members of the Delhi Police (Defendants 8 and 9). It is the case of the Plaintiffs that land measuring 3 bighas 8 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 156, village Naharpur, Delhi (hereinafter `suit property') is their ancestral property and a portion of the said land was also built up. DDA acquired large portions of land in the surrounding areas, but the suit property was left out of the acquisition as the same was built up area. By a policy dated 16th February, 1977, DDA decided to regularize both residential and commercial structures. The land belonging to the Plaintiffs continued to remain their property and was later on adjusted in the portion of Sector 7 of Rohini Development Scheme prepared by the DDA. The entire village of Nahapur was notified as a development area under Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter, „DDA Act‟) but was later denotified vide notification dated 22nd June, 1987. Thus, the DDA ceased to have any jurisdiction on the land. 2. On 18th June, 1988 at about 12:30 p.m., the staff of the DDA including the Defendant nos. 3 to 7 and the police officials, suddenly came to the spot and without any notice demolished and damaged the building of the Plaintiffs constructed on the suit property. It is the Plaintiffs' case that the land never belonged to the DDA and the DDA had illegally trespassed into the land. The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the following reliefs: "a) A decree for payment of Rs.8,00,000/ be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants and the defendants be held liable to pay the said amount jointly severally. b) The defendants be directed to restore the buildings of the plaintiff demolished by them and, in the RFA Nos. 754/2016 & 771/2016 Page 2 of 22 alternative, the defendants be restrained from interfering with the restoration of the buildings to their original condition by the plaintiffs themselves. c) Interest pendentilite and till date of payment @ Rs.18.00 % per annum be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants. d) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants." The officers involved in the drive were also made parties to the suit. The Defendants submitted in the written statement that the said land was properly acquired by the DDA and hence there was no encroachment. The Plaintiffs' structure was an unauthorized structure. 3. The following issues were framed in the suit: "1. Whether the building of the plaintiff was legally demolished by the defendants? (OPP) 2. If Issue no.1 is not provided, to what amount of damages, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? (OPP) 3. Relief." 4. The Plaintiffs led the evidence of the following seven w