Encroachment Of Govt Land An 'Ill That Plagues Civil Litigation', Trial Courts Must Decide Maintainability Of Such Cases At Initial Stage: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that it is incumbent on the Trial Courts to consider the maintainability of suits at the initial stage so as to ensure that long delays do not take place, especially in respect of government land.

Justice Pratibha M Singh dismissed a second appeal challenging a single Judge's order against possession of the Appellants of a government land. 

It was the case of the plaintiffs (Appellants herein) that they were in possession of the suit property situated in revenue estate of Humayunpur since the time of their forefathers. The original suit was filed against the DDA on the ground that on 8th May, 1984, DDA had threatened to demolish the construction of the house and asked the Plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the same.

It was the case of the DDA that the Plaintiffs were illegally occupying a horticulture park in the revenue estate of Village Humayunpur, which had already been acquired by the Union of India and was placed at the disposal of DDA. 

Accordingly, DDA alleged that the Plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in the suit property and the intention of the Plaintiffs was only to grab DDA's land by unauthorizedly constructing their house on the same.

Calling it another example of the "ills that plague civil litigation in respect of government acquired land", the Court said:

"The acquisition in this case dates back to 1961. The land was placed at the disposal of DDA in 1975. The suit in this case was filed in 1984 i.e., nine years later and was adjudicated upon by the Trial Court in 2011, i.e., more than 25 years later. The Appellate Court gave its decision in 2020. The DDA had taken an objection as to the maintainability of the suit itself, right at inception in its written statement. However, the suit had to go through the full journey of trial and final adjudication."

The Court was of the view that in such cases, advantage is taken of the fact that due to rampant encroachment, demarcation cannot be usually done in the manner as prescribed by law.

Justice Singh added that illegal occupants of such properties continue to enjoy prime government or public land without paying a single penny to the government for use and occupation.

"As government authorities continue to defend against suits filed by such occupants, the public is deprived of the use and enjoyment of the said land which has been acquired for public purposes. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Trial Courts, to consider the maintainability of such suits at the initial stage in a manner that they deem appropriate, so as to ensure that such long delays do not take place, especially in respect of government land," the Court said.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court directed that a copy of the order be circulated to all District Judges for onward circulation to all Judicial Officers in the Trial Courts.

On the facts of the case, the Court said that mere sporadic or stray entries in the revenue records cannot confer title and that the Plaintiff failed to establish that there is any substantial question of law which deserves to be adjudicated upon in the second appeal.

"…it is clear that apart from some mention in khasra girdawaris, there are no other concrete documents which have been filed by the Plaintiff to discharge the heavy onus that is placed on him," the Bench said.

This Court added that it was conscious of the fact that the suit property in question was stated to be near a South Delhi Colony and was very valuable, and therefore the Plaintiff who was in possession of a large part of the suit property, cannot continue to remain in possession, as permitting the same would be a "giving a premium to illegal encroachments and occupations on public land."

Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: NATHU RAM v. D.D.A & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 76

Click Here To Read Order