MANAV MANDIR MISSION TRUST vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 17 May 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 02 July 2024 + W.P.(C) 2256/2024 & CM APPL. 9399/2024, CM APPL. 15049/2024 MANAV MANDIR MISSION TRUST ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhijit Mittal, Mr.Anukalp Jain, Mr.Divynk Panwar, Mr.Nishank Tripathi, Ms.Palak Jain and Ms.Harshita Sukhija, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondents Through: Ms.Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr.Subhrodeep Saha, Advocate for UoI. Ms.Manika Tripathi and Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates for DDA. Mr.Alok Kumar, Mr.Varun Chandiok, Ms.Anubhi Goyal and Ms.Vinita Gugnani, Advocates for MCD/R-4. Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, standing counsel with Ms.K.K.Kiran Pathak, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.M.S.Akhtar, Ms.Nidhi Thakur, Ms.Musarrat B. Hashmi, Mr.Mayank Arora and Mr.Mayank Madhu, Advocates for R-5/LAC.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T
1. The Petitioner Trust invokes the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by instituting the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by seeking the following reliefs:

a) Declaring that the Petitioner Trust is a regularized institute engaged in Healthcare, Educational, Cultural and Religious (Spiritual) activities in terms of Zonal Development Plan for River Yamuna/Riverfront, Zone “O” (approved by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India vide letter number: K- 1201112312009-DDIB dated 08.03. 2010), notified in the gazette dated 10.08.2010;

b) Alternatively, issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent(s) to the effect that the Competent Committee regularizes the Petitioner Trust as an institute entitled to run its activities as per Zonal Development Plan for River Yamuna I River Front, Zone ‘O’ uninfluenced by the status of Land Acquisition by the Award dated 19.06.1992, keeping in view that the Petitioner otherwise qualifies all the requirements spelt out in the ZDP, 2010;

c) Quash the letter dated 03 .08 .2023 and set aside all actions taken in pursuance thereof and arising therefrom, at any time prior or subsequent thereto in relation to the Petitioner Trust.

d) Pass Ex Parte ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (i) above, during the pendency of the present Petition;

e) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is prayed accordingly.

f)

BRIEF FACTS:
2. The petitioner claims that it is a registered non-profitable charitable Trust of Jain dharma, having its principal place of activities at “a superstructure erected upon a piece of land measuring 3 bighas 7 biswa situated at Plot D in Khasra No. 57, Village Behlolpur Khadar, Tehsil – Defence Colony, District South East, Acharya Roop Chandra Marg, Sarai Kale Khan, Ring Road, New Delhi -110013”

(hereinafter referred as “subject premises”), popularly identified by the locals as Jain Ashram/Jain Mandir; and that it has been in peaceful, uninterrupted, settled, and legal possession of the subject premises since 1989 and has been providing day boarding and imparting vocational training to children of migrants, lodging and care to destitute elderly women besides running an Ayurvedic and Naturopathy Centre from such premises for 35 years now.

3. It is claimed that the petitioner Trust, which was registered in 1989 under the Indian Trusts Act 1862, acquired rights and title over the subject premises upon its valid transfer by the alleged original owners of the land in favour of the petitioner Trust by way of a gift. To solidify its claim that the petitioner Trust is in authorised lawful occupation of the subject premises, the petitioner Trust has placed reliance upon certain documents and cited certain authorities that are mentioned hereinbelow:

a) The revenue record of the subject premises as well as the Master Plan prepared by the Respondent No.2/DDA showing that the subject premises does not fall under any “prohibited area” or “forest land”.

b) Land Acquisition Award No.15/92-93 dated 19.06.1992 wherein certain portions of various Khasra Nos. including Khasra No. 57 were excluded from the acquisition proceedings. Page no.16 of the Award categorically states that “one Mandir in Kh. No. 57 min (5 Biswas) are left out of acquisition”.

c) Interim Order dated 30.03.1994 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2556 of 1990 titled “Baldev Singh Dhillon & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.” wherein directions were passed to protect the structure of the Jain Ashram/Jain Mandir as well as the possession of the Petitioner Trust.

d) Memo of Possession (“Kabza Karwayi”) dated 21.04.2006 issued by the DDA wherein it is stated that out of the list of land parcels that were to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Award No.15/92-93 dated 19.06.1992, the possession of the land occupied

by the petitioner Trust could not be taken by the Respondent No.2/DDA

e) Acknowledgment Letter dated 03.08.2006 issued by the Respondent No.3 in response to the Representation dated 28.07.2006 made on behalf of the Petitioner Trust requesting denotification of the subject premises under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

f) Advertisement No. F20(19)96-MP dated 01.05.2008 issued by Respondent No.2/DDA inviting applications for regularisation from bona fide institutions rendering Cultural, Religious, Spiritual, Health Care and Education Services, which had been in existence prior to 0 1.01.2006. Believing to have met the eligibility criteria for being regularised as laid down in the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner Trust submitted an application for regularisation dated 09.06.2008 before the Respondent No.2/DDA.

g) Zonal Development Plan for River Yamuna/Riverfront, Zone “O” approved by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India vide Letter No. K- 12011/23/2009-DDIB dated 08.03.2010, published in The Gazette of India-Extraordinary vide Notification No. REGD. NO. D.L- 33004/99 dated 10.08.2010 (Zonal Development Plan, 2010 /ZDP 2010) wherein the petitioner Trust is shown as a short-listed applicant (Serial Number 15, Annexure-IV) for regularisation subject to fulfilling the prerequisites contained in Clause 13 of the ZDP, 2010 that reads as “Regularisation of existing Health Care, Educational, Cultural & Religious (including Spiritual) institute existing prior to 01.01.2006 on self-owned land not including Gram Sabha or Ridge Land”. The petitioner Trust states that the Respondents No.1 and 2 did not call upon the petitioner Trust for further clarifications raising the presumption that the regularisation process of the petitioner Trust was complete and successful.

h) Judgment dated 27.04.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition bearing no. WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014 titled as “Manav Mandir Mission Trust v. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr.” declaring that the acquisition proceedings against the petitioner Trust had lapsed since the possession of the land was not taken within 5 years from the passing of the land acquisition award, as per the law laid out in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki1.

1 2014 3 SCC 183

It is pertinent to note here that the Respondent No.2/DDA preferred a Civil Appeal No. 1835 of 2022 bearing S.L.P. (C) No. 32247 of 2016 against the aforesaid judgment dated 27.04.2015 before the Supreme Court which came up for consideration only after its
decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors.2 had come into effect and the presumption of the land acquisition proceedings having been lapsed stood negated. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to withdraw the original WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014 pending before this Court with liberty to seek redressal in accordance with law.
2 (2020) 8 SCC 129

4. It is the case of the petitioner that since the subject premises has been consciously and intentionally excluded time and again from the acquisition proceedings carried out by the Respondent No.2/DDA in the Zone „O”, the only inference that can be drawn from such omissions on the part of the Respondent No.2/DDA is that the occupation of the subject premises by the petitioner Trust has been approved and authorised by the Respondent No.2/DDA. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner Trust has a vested right to be in continued possession of its self-owned property being the subject premises, without any interference, in as much as it is protected by the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the said effect.

5. Evidently, what precipitated the institution of this writ petition is that on 03.08.2023, the Respondent No.3 issued a Letter to the Respondent No.2 and the Deputy Secretary, Land & Building Department pertaining to a joint survey for handing over of the physical possession of certain land parcels to the Respondent No.2/DDA. It is pointed out that the said survey report confirmed the physical status of the subject premises to be in the possession of the Petitioner Trust and further remarked that “the matter may be referred to its Religious Committee”. In response, the petitioner Trust issued replies dated 12.12.2023, 13.12.2023 & 14.12.2023 stating that it is

fully eligible to be regularised as per Advertisement No. F20(19)96-MP dated 01.05.2008 and ought not be referred for assessment to the Religious Committee, however the said representations made by the petitioner Trust were not met with any response whatsoever from the respondents. The petitioner Trust is apprehensive that the Respondents are contemplating denial of the fact that the Petitioner is eligible to be a regularised institute, carrying its activities in accordance with the approved ZDP 2010, in complete adherence to the applicable laws.

6. It further transpires from the record that the Respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 19.01.2024 to the petitioner Trust stating in bureaucratic fashion that all the files received by the DDA in respect of the Zonal Development Plan of Zone-O prepared under MPD-2021 were forwarded to the Respondent No. 4/MCD, and thus, the Petitioner Trust should take up its grievance with the Respondent No. 3/GNCTD and Respondent No.4/MCD.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner Trust is under an imminent threat of dispossession at the behest of the respondents, which threat has now escalated because a Demolition Notice dated 06.02.2024 has already been issued with regard to certain properties in the vicinity of the subject premises, thereby raising justifiable concerns in the mind of the petitioner to the effect that the demolition drive sought to be carried out commencing 16.02.2024 may also affect the status and position of the Petitioner’s premises.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
8. On entertaining the instant writ petition, this Court vide order dated 15.02.2024 has also impleaded Land Acquisition Collector

(LAC), District South-East as Respondent No.5 in the present petition. Respondent no.2/DDA has filed a short affidavit along with certain documents and the stand of the DDA emerging from the pleadings is as under:

a) The subject premises that is falling in Zone „O” is a part of the Yamuna River Flood Plain and has been acquired vide Land Acquisition Award No. 15/92-93 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The physical possession of 25 Bigha out of the whole has been handed over to the DDA by the LAC/L&B Department, GNCTD on 21.04.2006 following which, the same was transferred to the Horticulture Division- VII on 14.02.2017 for maintaining the same as green cover.

b) As per the directions of the Hon”ble Lt. Governor, all the regularisation applications received within 60 days from the date of publication of the advertisement dated 01.05.2008, falling in Zone “O” and the ones annexed in the Zonal Development Plan of Zone “O” prepared under the MPD-2021, have already been forwarded to the concerned local body (erstwhile South MCD) on 11.07.2023.

c) As per the Zonal Development Plan of the said zone under the MPD- 2021, the official land use of the subject premises is “Recreational”, and recreational areas are dealt and designed by the „Landscape Department” of the DDA.

d) The letter dated 03.08.2023, concerning the joint survey for handing over physical possession of the parcels of the land-in-question to the DDA was issued by the office of ADM (South-East), GNCTD, and the DDA has no role in the same.

e) The subject premises is located in the demarcated Yamuna flood plain area where eco-restoration plantation is to be undertaken by the DDA as a part of a public project namely „Restoration and Rejuvenation of River Yamuna Project”. Moreover, the hon”ble National Green Tribunal in “Manoj Misra V. Union of India & Ors3” and this Court in “Vijay Kumar Diwakar v. SDMC & Ors.” have consistently held that the Respondent No.2 take immediate steps to repossess the Yamuna Flood Plains and ensure that it is free of all encroachments.

f) Reliance has been placed on the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the apex court in “Sultana Shaheen v. Durga Shankar Mishra & Anr.” wherein it has been held that the DDA is not precluded from carrying out demolition task of unauthorised constructions that could never be regularised.

3 OA No.6 of 2012 before the NGT

g) The Petitioner Trust has encroached upon valuable public land which has also adversely affected the ecology of the Yamuna, thus the DDA is at the liberty to carry out encroachment-removal programs on the subject premises.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT THE BAR:
9. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Trust submitted that the petitioner is not an encroacher rather it is a bonafide purchaser and in rightful possession and occupation of the subject premises. Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to several documents including Land Acquisition Award No.15/92-93 dated 19.06.1992, Interim Order dated 30.03.1994 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2556 of 1990 and Memo of Possession dated 21.04.2006 to buttress the plea that the subject premises was admittedly intentionally left out of the land acquisition proceedings by the respondents and the subject premises continues to be in uninterrupted possession of the petitioner Trust. It was contended that the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to act contrary to their stated policy and the factual position obtained from the records and the land in question. It was further submitted that the advertisement dated 01.05.2008 cannot be given the colour of a legislation and that the subject premises is fully eligible to be regularised as per Clause 13 of the Zonal Development Plan for Zone „O” which is the actual piece of legislation. It was also urged that the formal application for Denotification, and Regularisation of the subject premises submitted by the Petitioner Trust to the respondents has not yet been rejected and is presumably still under consideration. Adding another twist to the matter, learned Senior Counsel also urged

that as per the Zonal Development Plan for River Yamuna/ River Front, Zone „O”, the subject premises does not even fall under Zone „O”, hence the letter dated 03 .08 .2023 should be quashed.

10. Per contra, Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2/DDA controverted the aforesaid submissions by bringing the attention of this Court to Clause 9.2.2 (vi) and Clause 7.2 of the ZDP for Zone „O” that includes “Village Badarpur Khadar” under the list of urban villages in River Yamuna falling under the scope of the ZDP. She urged that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer the present petition since possession of the subject premises is still with the petitioners and no case of imminent threat of dispossession has been made out by the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner has unauthorisedly encroached on public land and is creating a hindrance to the Yamuna rejuvenation projects being undertaken by the respondents under the abovementioned orders of the Supreme Court, the NGT as well as this Court for the purpose of restoring the ecological balance of the Yamuna floodplains.

11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2/DDA also contended that the apex court in Civil Appeal titled “DDA vs. Manav Mandir Mission Trust”, bearing C.A. No. 1835/2022, vide its Order dated 07.03.2022 has already held that the Judgment dated 27.04.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition bearing no. WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014, that is being relied upon by the petitioner, is unsustainable in law in view of the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (supra), and accordingly, the acquisition was upheld by the apex court. She

vehemently urged that the present petition should be dismissed with heavy costs because by way of the present petition, the petitioner Trust is seeking the same interim reliefs on the same grounds that it sought in a priorly instituted Writ Petition bearing no. WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014 which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by the apex court in C.A. No. 1835/2022.

12. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Trust opposed the said contentions on behalf of the DDA and submitted that the doctrine of Res Judicata does not apply to the present case since the Supreme Court did not pass any judgment in the first set of proceedings, and rather the petitioner had withdrawn the WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014, therefore it cannot be said that a finality has been arrived at with regard to the issues involved in the present matter.

13. Ms. Monika Arora, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5/Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) contended that the possession of the subject premises was not taken under the land acquisition proceedings due to unsettled disputes regarding the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner in lieu of the acquisition and the same has been observed in the Judgment dated 27.04.2015 passed by this Court in. WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014. Furthermore, it was contended that as per the Land Acquisition Award No.15/92-93 dated 19.06.1992, the correct area of Khasra No. 57 was stated to be 20 Bighas – 7 Biswa and the same was acquired leaving out a portion admeasuring 3 Bighas- 7 Biswa, whereat the subject premises is situated. Lastly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the power

to de-notify the subject premises rests exclusively with the Hon”ble Lt. Governor under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 18944.

4Act of 1894

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
14. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar. I have also perused the relevant record of the present case.

15. First things first, it would be expedient to recapitulate the admitted facts and circumstances of the instant matter. Evidently, pursuant to notice under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 dated 23.06.1969, the land measuring 20 bighas and 7 biswas falling in village Behlolpur Khadar, Khasra No. 57 amongst other land/properties, was acquired by the Land and Development Department vide award dated 19.06.1992, vide which the subject premises was listed at serial No. 86 for which a compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per sq.yds; structure Rs.10 lakhs and damages for Rs.5 lakhs was assessed and payable. It is also brought on the record that by the same award dated 19.06.1992, it was provided under the head “Compensation of Trees and Structure” that one mandir in khasra No.57 min (5 biswas) apart from others was left out of acquisition. It is also brought on the record that as per the Memo of Possession (kabja karwai) that was undertaken on 21.04.2006, the possession of land measuring 3 bighas 7 biswas in khasra No.57 was not taken.

16. It is pertinent to mention here that the possession of land falling under the subject property had not been physically taken probably due to the directions passed in CM No.2374/1994 in WP(C) No.2556/1990

dated 13.03.1994 by this Court whereby the status quo was granted inter alia also directing the petitioner not to carry out any further construction in the garb of the said stay order.

17. It appears that a representation was preferred by the petitioner Trust to the Hon”ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi dated 28.07.2006 which was apparently replied vide letter dated 03.08.2006 intimating the petitioner Trust that the matter regarding de-notification of the land in question has been referred to Principal Secretary, Land and Building for appropriate action. Thereafter, the matter remained in limbo, and it appears that a spate of representations had been preferred by the petitioner Trust vide letters dated 12.12.2023, 13.12.2023 and 14.12.2023.

18. Another twist in the tale is revealed when it is brought to the fore that an advertisement/notification was issued by DDA on 01.05.2008 inviting applications for regularisation of bona fide institutions rendering cultural, religious including spiritual, health care and education services, which read as under :-

19. It is an admitted fact that a representation was preferred by the petitioner Trust in terms of the aforesaid notification dated 01.05.2008, the consideration of which again remained in limbo but then as brought out by the petitioner Trust, it was informed by the DDA vide letter dated 19.01.2024 that a decision with respect to the

Zonal Development Plan is yet to be taken and the matter shall be considered by GNCTD5 and MCD6.

20. The aforesaid background brings to the fore that legal proceedings were initiated at the behest of the petitioner/trust by instituting WP(C) No.7660/2014 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution apprehending threatened action by the respondents for demolition of the subject property which was claimed to be in contravention to Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The following relief was claimed by the petitioner/trust by way of the aforesaid writ petition: –

5 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi 6 Municipal Corporation of Delhi 7 (2014) 3 SCC 183

a) appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking possession of and/or demolishing the Jain Mandir admeasuring 3 bighas and 7 biswas situate in Khasra No. 57, Village Behlolpur Khadar, Ring Road, Opposite Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi.
21. Eventually, the WP(C) 7660/2014 came to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2015 whereby it was observed that since the physical possession of the subject land had not been taken by the land acquiring agency and no compensation had been paid to the petitioner, the ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act had been met and relying on decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.7, the writ was allowed to the extent of giving a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the „Act of

1894″ in respect of the subject land were deemed to have been lapsed. The aforesaid decision by the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the DDA in SLP (C) No.32247/2016, in which following order dated 07.03.2022 was passed by the Supreme Court:

“Leave granted. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court on 27.04.2015, whereby the respondent writ petitioner was given the benefit of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently, a direction was issued that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are deemed to have lapsed. The order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in ( 2020) 8 SCC 129. However, the learned counsel for the respondent wishes to withdraw the writ petition filed before the High Court itself because the writ petitioner is running old age home, orphanage, and a temple on a land admeasuring 3 Bighas and 7 Biswas the land, which is the subject matter of acquisition, to seek redressal of his grievances in. accordance with law. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The writ petition filed before the High Court is dismissed as withdrawn, as sought for. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.”
22. From the aforesaid established facts and turn of events in the history of litigation that have ensued between the parties, it is firstly pertinent to state that the notification dated 01.05.2008 evidently stipulated that regularisation in respect of land inter alia which does not fall under the „river bed” shall not be considered. Secondly, there is no denying the fact that in terms of the ZDP8 of Zone „O” prepared by the MDP9; a list of institutions that had applied in terms of notification/advertisement dated 01.05.2008 for regularisation on the

8 Zonal Development Plan 9 Master Development Plan

claim of being engaged in cultural, religious (spiritual) health care and education services existing before 01.01.2006 was annexed as Annexure IV in the ZDP and it was clearly stipulated that the above listed institutions fell in „river bed”, and therefore, none of them has been shown in the land used plan as per terms and conditions of advertisement No.F.20(19) 96-MP dated 01.05.2008.

23. Pertinently, in the short affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2/DDA dated 02.05.2024, it is also brought out that the subject area is officially earmarked for „recreational use”. Thirdly, there is no denying the fact that the parcel of land i.e. subject property falling in khasra No.57, measuring 3 bighas 7 biswas out of total 20 bighas and 7 biswas (however as per respondent no. 5 L&DO, it was 28 bighas and 7 biswas) falls in Zone „O”. It is an admitted position that the ZDP planned for Zone „O” as approved by the Ministry of Urban Development10 under Section 9(2) of the DD Act, 1957 and notified under Section 11 by the DDA on 10.08.2010, clearly stipulated that the cultural, religious (including spiritual) education and health care institutions shall be subject to fulfilment of conditions as given in para 30 of the ZDP/Government directions issued from time to time. At the cost of repetition, paragraph (13) vide Annexure IV excluded the institutions which were falling in the „river bed”. It would not be out of place to mention paragraph 9.2.2(vi), which goes as under :

10 vide letter No.K-12011/23/2009-DDIB dated 08.03.2010

“vi) The River zone has three distinct morphologies: a) River bed i.e. , the area under River water b) River flood plain i.e., the area between River water course and embankments
c) River front i.e., the area outside the embankments The area under water course is part of the river hydrology. The area between water course and embankment is to be conserved as flood plain. Any development in this areas should be taken up only after the detailed hydrological studies and with approval of Yamuna Standing Committee/Central Water Commission. The area out side the flood plain i.e., outside embankments (River front) should be conserved and developed considering the eco-sensitive nature of the river zone and based on comprehensive scheme.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it brought to the fore that the claim by the petitioner trust that it is entitled to be regularised as a religious institution and thereby allowed to possess, occupy and use the subject property despite falling in the rive zone for such religious & charitable purposes cannot be sustained in law. It would not be out of place to indicate that no documents have been placed on record so as to suggest that the subject property has been acquired by the petitioner trust by way of a valid gift. No copy of such Gift Deed, certified or otherwise, has been placed on record. Neither is there any revenue record relied upon by the petitioner trust evidencing its rightful ownership in the subject property. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner Trust must establish its clear right, title and nature of possession in the subject property, superior to the Government authority and there is a presumption in favour of the Government. Reference can be invited to decision by the Supreme Court in R. Hanumaiah vs State of Karnataka11, wherein it was held as under:

11 (2010) 5 SCC 203

“ 19. Suits for declaration of title against the Government, though similar to suits for declaration of title against private individuals differ significantly in some aspects. The first difference is in regard to the presumption available in favour of the Government. All lands which are not the property of any person or which are not vested in a local authority, belong to the Government. All unoccupied lands
are the property of the Government, unless any person can establish his right or title to any such land. This presumption available to the Government, is not available to any person or individual. The second difference is in regard to the period for which title and/or possession has to be established by a person suing for declaration of title. Establishing title/possession for a period exceeding twelve years may be adequate to establish title in a declaratory suit against any individual. On the other hand, title/possession for a period exceeding thirty years will have to be established to succeed in a declaratory suit for title against the Government. This follows from Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a longer period of thirty years as limitation in regard to suits by the Government as against the period of 12 years for suits by private individuals. The reason is obvious. Government properties are spread over the entire State and it is not always possible for the Government to protect or safeguard its properties from encroachments. Many a time, its own officers who are expected to protect its properties and maintain proper records, either due to negligence or collusion, create entries in records to help private parties, to lay claim of ownership or possession against the Government. Any loss of government property is ultimately the loss to the community. Courts owe a duty to be vigilant to ensure that public property is not converted into private property by unscrupulous elements. 20. Many civil courts deal with suits for declaration of title and injunction against the Government, in a casual manner, ignoring or overlooking the special features relating to government properties. Instances of such suits against the Government being routinely decreed, either ex parte or for want of proper contest, merely acting upon the oral assertions of plaintiffs or stray revenue entries are common. Whether the Government contests the suit or not, before a suit for declaration of title against a Government is decreed, the plaintiff should establish, either his title by producing the title deeds which satisfactorily trace title for a minimum period of thirty years prior to the date of the suit (except where title is claimed with reference to a grant or transfer by the Government or a statutory development authority), or by establishing adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years. In such suits, courts cannot, ignoring the presumptions available in favour of the Government, grant declaratory or injunctive decrees against the Government by relying upon one of the principles underlying pleadings that plaint averments which are not denied or traversed are deemed to have been accepted or admitted. 21. A court should necessarily seek an answer to the following question, before it grants a decree declaring title against the Government: whether the plaintiff has produced title deeds tracing the title for a period of more than thirty years; or whether the plaintiff has established his adverse possession to the knowledge of the Government for a period of more than thirty years, so as to convert his possession into title. Incidental to that question, the court should also find out whether the plaintiff is recorded to be the owner or holder or occupant of the property in the revenue records or municipal records, for more than thirty years, and what is the nature of possession claimed by the plaintiff, if he is in possession—authorised or unauthorised; permissive; casual and occasional; furtive and clandestine; open, continuous and hostile; deemed or implied (following a title).
22. Mere temporary use or occupation without the animus to claim ownership or mere use at sufferance will not be sufficient to create any right adverse to the Government. In order to oust or defeat the title of the Government, a claimant has to establish a clear title which is superior to or better than the title of the Government or establish perfection of title by adverse possession for a period of more than thirty years with the knowledge of the Government. To claim adverse
possession, the possession of the claimant must be actual, open and visible, hostile to the owner (and therefore necessarily with the knowledge of the owner) and continued during the entire period necessary to create a bar under the law of limitation. In short, it should be adequate in continuity, publicity and in extent. Mere vague or doubtful assertions that the claimant has been in adverse possession will not be sufficient. Unexplained stray or sporadic entries for a year or for a few years will not be sufficient and should be ignored. 23. As noticed above, many a time it is possible for a private citizen to get his name entered as the occupant of government land, with the help of collusive government servants. Only entries based on appropriate documents like grants, title deeds, etc. or based upon actual verification of physical possession by an authority authorised to recognise such possession and make appropriate entries can be used against the Government. By its very nature, a claim based on adverse possession requires clear and categorical pleadings and evidence, much more so, if it is against the Government. Be that as it may.”
25. The aforesaid dictum was applied by this Court in the matter of Nathu Ram v. DDA, 202212 and it was held that there is heavy onus upon the petitioner to establish that they acquired the subject property through legally recognized documents and not by inference. Be that as it may, when the claim for regularisation of the said property is not sustainable in terms of advertisement dated 01.05.2008 by the DDA as also falling foul of the ZDP for Zone „O” brought into effect w.e.f 10.08.2010, the instant writ petition is without any foundation or substratum.

26. Drawing the curtains finally down in the matter, there is considerable merit in the plea advanced by learned senior counsel for DDA that the reliefs which were claimed in the earlier WP(C) No.7660/2014, and which reliefs stood negated up to the Supreme Court, are being espoused indirectly in the present writ petition albeit under the garb of regularisation in terms of scheme dated 01.05.2008. There is no merit in the plea by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the withdrawal of the writ petition in the Supreme

12 SCC Online Del 315

Court in terms of order dated 07.03.2022, in the absence of a final order, did not obliterate their legal rights to continue to use, possess and occupy the subject property. Evidently, the subject property has not been left out of the acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 48 of the Act of 189413. In the last, a mere apprehension in the mind of the petitioner/trust that some demolition notices have been served in respect of adjoining religious places and they apprehend demolition of the said property is also misplaced. No mileage can be derived by the petitioner Trust merely because the matter is yet to be referred and considered by the Religious Committee14 constituted by His Excellency Lt. Government. There is no real, immediate, or imminent threat of demolition of the subject property either.

27. In view of the foregoing decision, this Court finds that the present writ petition is without any legal foundation and the claim of the petitioner/trust for regularisation cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the present writ deserves to be dismissed. However, considering that the petitioner Trust is apparently running various social services including an orphanage, if any demolition action is proposed, the petitioner Trust shall be given at least 15 days” clear notice in advance through all permissible modes of service.

13 48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed- (1)Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.
(2)Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. (3)The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section. 14 No. F.11/50/91-HP-11 DATED 04.03.1991

28. The present writ petition along with pending applications stands disposed of accordingly.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. JULY 02, 2024 VLD