SHRI GEETA PRACHAR SABHA REGD GEETA BHAWAN MANDIR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 743/2023 & CM APPL. 58908-58910/2023
SHRI GEETA PRACHAR SABHA REGD. GEETA BHAWAN MANDIR ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate (through VC)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Kashish G. Baweja, Advocate for R-1.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advocate for DDA.

% Date of Decision: 04th December, 2023

CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 21st August, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1757/2012, wherein directions have been passed to maintain the land measuring 405 square meters adjoining the temple, i.e., Geeta Bhawan Mandir, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110017 as Green Area, which the residents of the area shall be entitled to use and enjoy as a park.
2. It is the case on behalf of the appellant-society that the temple in question was constructed around 60 years back by the appellant-society and land measuring 1111 square yards has been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the appellant-society since therein. The temple has a built up portion as well as vacant space open to sky adjacent to the built up portion for use of the temple. The said vacant area was duly bounded by the fencing since the very beginning, however, with the passage of time, the said fencing got dislocated, though the possession of the said open area always remained with the appellant-society.
3. It is submitted that adjacent to the open area of the temple, there is a vacant plot of land, which is owned by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. However, without checking its records, the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India has been claiming the open area of the temple as part of the land owned by the said Ministry, in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, being W.P.(C) 1757/2012. It is only when the officials of the Land and Development Office (“L&DO”), Government of India visited the area in order to construct a boundary wall over the vacant land of the temple, that the appellant-society came to know about the order dated 19th April, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1757/2012 directing construction of a boundary wall over the land, as claimed by the appellant society.
4. Pursuant thereto, the appellant-society filed applications before the learned Single Judge seeking to implead itself as a party in the said proceedings and for seeking modification of the order dated 19th April, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order dated 21st August, 2023, the learned Single Judge held that the land in question had not been allotted to the appellant society. Thus, directions were issued that the L&DO shall maintain the 405 square meters of land as a Green Area and will plant appropriate number of trees. The learned Single Judge further directed that the residents of the area will be entitled to use and enjoy the same as a park. Aggrieved by the said directions passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed.
5. On behalf of the appellant-society it is submitted that the appellant-society had long and uninterrupted possession of the land in question. Therefore, the directions passed in the impugned order ought to be stayed. It is submitted that the appellant-society has already filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which is pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi, being Suit No. CS SCJ 531/2023, titled as “Shree Geeta Prachar Sabha Versus Delhi Development Authority and Ors.” It is submitted that Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) has filed its written statement in the said suit, wherein the title of the land in question has been claimed by DDA. Therefore, it is contended that the L&DO has no right to maintain the said area as park.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have justified the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court notes that the land in question, as claimed by the appellant-society, has never been allotted to the appellant-society. Rather, the appellant-society itself has brought the attention of this Court to the written statement filed on behalf of DDA in the suit filed by it, wherein the DDA has categorically staked its claim as owner of the land in question. Para 3 of the written statement of the DDA in the suit filed on behalf of appellant-society herein, being Suit No. CS-SCJ 531/2023, reads as under:
“XXX XXX XXX

3. That the suit land was visited by surveyor/field staff of DDA/defendant number-1 wherein it was found that the vacant land measuring 11 feet X 100 feet = 122.2 sq. yards (suit property) lying on the righthand side of the constructed portion of Temple (89 feet X 100 feet = 988.8 sq. yards) is the DDA Land and is a part of the land measuring 1111 sq. yards handed over to DDA on l0-02-1984 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation under the Package Deal. It is submitted that no one except DDA has any right, title or interest in the suit property. It is submitted that the defendant number herein has been making false and frivolous claims in respect of the suit property whereas the true fact is that it was handed over to DDA under a Package Deal. It is further submitted that the defendant number 3, L&DO has also no right, title or interest in the suit property as there are no documents in its favour. It is also clarified that the defendant number 2, Ministry of Rehabilitation has already transferred the right, title and interest in the suit land in pursuance to the Package Deal executed by it with DDA on 02-09-1982 and later on handed over the possession of the suit property on 10-02-1984.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

8. Thus, it is clear that the title of the land in question does not vest with the appellant-society, as the same is being claimed by the L&DO and the DDA. The dispute as regards ownership of the land in question between L&DO and DDA is a separate issue, and the appellant-society herein cannot draw any mileage out of the same.
9. The averments raised by the appellant-society, as regards to its right of possession over the subject land, are disputed questions of facts that cannot be decided in the present proceedings. The appellant-society has already filed a suit for declaration with respect to the subject land. Therefore, as of now, the appellant-society cannot claim any right, title or interest over the property in question. Consequently, till the rights, as claimed by the appellant-society, are decided in the suit filed on behalf of the appellant, no order can be passed in favour of the appellant-society by this Court.
10. In view thereof, this Court finds no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, it is directed that the area in question adjacent to the Geeta Bhawan Mandir, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110017, shall be maintained as a green area. The residents of the area will be entitled to use and enjoy this area as a park for the time being, in terms of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge.
11. However, it is made clear that the present directions are subject to any order that may be passed in favour of the appellant-society herein in the suit filed on its behalf, in case the appellant-society is able to establish any right, title or interest over the land in question.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of, along with pending applications.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

MINI PUSHKARNA, J
DECEMBER 4, 2023
Au/Ak

LPA 743/2023 Page 1 of 5