IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA

COURTS NEW DELHI

Civil Suit No. of 2023

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar …Plaintiff
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff were recorded

bhumidars and in cultivatory possession of agricultural land
bearing khasra nos. 800/91 & 94 (2-2), 92 (0-4), 93(1-16), 95 (6-
17) situated in the revenue estate of village Ujwa, New Delhi. The
photo copies of the khatauni Chakbandi alongwith its Hindi
translation are filed herewith as Annexure P-1(Colly).

2. That the pedigree of the family of the plaintiff is as below:-

Digh Ram
(Expired)
_____________/____________
/ /
Lakhi Ram Rati Ram
(Expired ) (Expired)
/ __ ___________ _/________________
/ / / / /
Umed Singh Rajinder Rajbir Bhup Singh
(Expired)
/
Rakesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar
3. That the deceased grand father of the plaintiff namely Digh Ram
has constructed cowshed in the land situated in khasra no. 800/91
 & 94 (2-2) along with the other family members and using the
same as Gitwar. In the year 1973, the consolidation proceedings
took place in the village Ujwa and the suit property was converted
into the extended Lal Dora Abadi and the family of the plaintiff
was allotted residential plots bearing khasra nos. 240,241,243 and
244. The father and other family members of the plaintiff namely
Rati Ram, Net Ram and Preet were continue to be in possession of
the suit property till today. The plaintiff and other family members
of the plaintiff were never asked to vacate the suit property by the
revenue authorities. It is surprising that in the scheme of the
consolidation proceedings, the suit property was not covered in the
scheme for the allotment to the bhumidars or nor it was entered in
the name of Gram Sabha. The photo copy of the scheme along with
its Hindi translation is filed herewith as Annexure P-2(Colly).

4. That after the death of Umed Singh, the plaintiff alone inherited
the suit property by way of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act
1956. It is relevant to mention here that during the lifetime, Sh.
Umed Singh has divided his properties amongst his sons and the
suit property came to the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is
in continuous, uninterrupted physical possession of the suit
property. The suit property is more specifically shown in red color
in the attached site plan as Annexure P-3.

5. That thus to summarize and take the aforesaid contention one step
further it would be necessary to point out that the plaintiffs since
the year 1954-55 has been in exclusive physical possession of the
aforesaid plot measuring 350 Sq Yds. part of Khasra No. 242 since
 Sixty Seven years before the consolidation proceedings as a
Bhumidar and after consolidation in the year 1973 as continue to
be in continuous, uninterrupted, hostile to the defendants
possession of the suit property. The copy of the receipt for the
water connection and water connection bill and the electricity bill
are filed herewith as Annexure P-4 (colly). Hence by the
provisions of article 65 of The Limitation Act 1963, the plaintiff
has completed the limitation of 30 years and acquired title of the
suit property by adverse possession.

6. That the concept of adverse possession has a root in the aspect that
it awards ownership of land to a person who makes the best or
highest use of the land. The adverse possession statutes permits
rapid development of wild lands with the weak or indeterminate
title. The possessor who maintain and improved the land has a
more valid claim to the land than the owner who never visits of
cares for the land and used it, is of no utility if a former neglects
and allows the gradual dissociation between himself and what he is
claiming and he knows that someone else is caring by doing acts,
the attachment which one develops by caring cannot be easily
parted with. The bundle of ingredients constitutes adverse
possession. Thus the plaintiffs or their fore-fathers were in
possession of the suit property to the knowledge of the defendants
and their possession is hostile to the true owner i.e. defendants.

7. That the revenue record and the electricity and water connection
documents placed on record by the plaintiff pertaining to the
period since 1973 till today clearly shows that the possession of the
 plaintiff and his predecessor in interest was open and in adverse to
the defendants. It is clear from the revenue record that the
possession of the plaintiffs in their predecessor in interest was in
the knowledge of the defendants.

8. That now from the Year 2018, the defendant no. 3 initiated the
proceedings under section 133 CrPC. Against the plaintiff and his
other family members on the complaint filed by one Jaswant Singh
and a conditional order dated 20.02.2020 and absolute order dated
11.11.2022 was passed by the defendants no.3. the plaintiff has
filed a revision petition against the aforesaid orders and the
Hon’ble appellate Courts of Sh. Sushil Kumar, ASJ, Dwarka
Courts in CR No.51/2023 was pleased to stay the impugned order
till next date of hearing vide orders dated 31.01.2023. the
photocopy of the certified copy of Dasti order is filed herewith as
Annexure P-5.

9. That it is relevant to mention here that on 04.02.2023 the revenue

officials along with some unknown persons visited the suit
property and demarcated the suit property. The plaintiff has shown
the revenue record to the officials of revenue staff but they refused
to see the revenue record held by the plaintiff and stated that the
suit property is Gram Sabha land which clearly indicates that the
defendants wants to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit
property.

10. That in a recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in

Civil Appeal No. 7764/2014 case titled as “Ravinder Kaur Grewal
 & Ors. Vs Manjeet Kaur & Ors.” dated 07.08.2019 as held that a
person claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession can
maintain a suit under article 65 of Limitation Act 1963 for
declaration of title and permanent injunction seeking the protection
of his possession thereby restraining the defendant from interfering
in the possession against the defendant whose title has been
extinguished by virtue of the plaintiff remaining in adverse
possession, hence this suit.

11. That the cause of action for filing the present suit has arisen on
11.11.2022 when the defendant no.3 passed the absolute order
under section 141 CrPC and directed the plaintiff to remove the
construction from khasra no.242 allegedly shown as public rasta
the cause of action further arose on 04.02.2023 when the officials
of defendant no. 3 visited and forcibly demarcated the suit property
and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit property and in case
the plaintiff failed, the same shall be vacated by JCB and Local
Police and is continuing on a daily basis since the officials of the
defendants are repeatedly visiting the suit property to forcibly
dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property.

12. That the suit property lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

13. That the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and the
relief of permanent injunction is valued at Rs 130/- and the
appropriate court fee of Rs 13/- has been affixed along with the
 plaint. The plaintiff undertakes to make good any deficiency in
court fees on account of any error in its computation or calculation.

Prayer:-

In view of the aforesaid submission it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the
plaintiff and against the defendants, their agents,
servants, employees, etc thereby restraining them from
forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff and interfering in
the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit
property i.e. area measuring 350 sq. yds. part of
khasra no. 242 situated in the extended Lal Dora
Abadi of village Ujwa, New Delhi, more specifically
shown in red color in the site plan filed with the plaint,

b. Award costs of the suit in favor of the plaintiff and

against the defendants,
Pass any other order this Hon’ble court may deem just and
Pertinent, in the interest of justice.

NEW DELHI
DATED:-10.02.2023 PLAINTIFF

THROUGH

NAVEEN TYAGI
(ADVOCATE)
VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi on this 10 th day of February, 2023, that the

contents of Para No. 1 to 10 of the plaint are true and correct to the best

of my knowledge and the contents of Para No. 11 to 13 are believed to

be true on the basis of the information received from my counsel and I

subscribe to the correctness of the same. The last para is a prayer made to

this Hon’ble Court.

PLAINTIFF
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA
COURTS NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. of 2023

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar …Plaintiff

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Ashok Kumar S/o Late Umed Singh, aged 47 years appx R/o
VPO Ujwa, New Delhi, solemnly affirms on oath as under:-
1. I am the plaintiff in the above mentioned suit and I am well
aware of the facts of the case, hence competent to swear this
affidavit.

2. That the accompanying plaint has been drafted by my counsel

on my instructions, and the facts stated herein are true and
correct. The contents of accompanying plaint may be read as a
part and parcel of this affidavit, which are not repeated herein
for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 10th day of February, 2023, that the
contents of the above affidavit are true to my best knowledge and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA
COURTS NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. of 2023

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar …Plaintiff

VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH

SECTION 151 C.P.C. FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE
INJUNCTION ON BHEALF OF THE APPLICANT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. That the applicant has filed an accompanying suit before this

Hon’ble Court and he craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to
averments made in the plaint as the contents of the same have not
been repeated herein for the sake of brevity, however the same may
be read as part and parcel of this application.

2. That in case the defendants are not restrained by means of ex-parte

ad-interim injunction from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from
the suit property, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money and the suit
shall become infructuous.

3. That the defendants are adamant to forcibly dispossessing the

plaintiff from the suit property in which he has no right, title or
interest and this Hon’ble Court’s intervention is prayed to stop the
defendants in their evil design.
4. That the applicant has strong prima facie case in his favour and
there is every likelihood of his getting success in the case. That the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendants. There is sufficient ground available in the grant of
ad-interim injunction.

PRAYER:-
It, is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an ad-interim injunction in
favour of the applicant and against the defendants, thereby
restraining the defendants their employees, officials, agents and
contractors etc.. from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff and
interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit
property i.e. area measuring 350 sq. yds. part of khasra no. 242
situated in the extended Lal Dora Abadi of village Ujwa, New
Delhi, more specifically shown in red color in the site plan filed
with the plaint,
Any other or further relief(s) which this Hon’ble court deems
fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice.

PLAINTIF
NEW DELHI. THROUGH
DATE: 10.02.2023.
(NAVEEN TYAGI)
ADVOCATE
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA
COURTS NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. of 2023

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar …Plaintiff

VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Ashok Kumar S/o Late Umed Singh, aged 47 years appx R/o
VPO Ujwa, New Delhi, solemnly affirms on oath as under:-

1. I am the plaintiff in the above mentioned suit and I am well aware

of the facts of the case, hence competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application U/o 39 rule 1 &2 R/w 151 CPC
has been drafted by my counsel on my instructions, and the facts
stated herein are true and correct. The contents of accompanying
plaint may be read as a part and parcel of this affidavit, which are
not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 10th day of February, 2023, that the
contents of the above affidavit are true to my best knowledge and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA
COURTS NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. of 2023

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar …Plaintiff

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants

INDEX

[Link]. PARTICULARS PAGE [Link]

1. Memo of Parties
2. Suit for Declaration
and Permanent Injunction.
Affidavit in support

3. Application U/o 39 R. 1 & 2

R/w. Section 151 C.P.C.
Affidavit in support

4. List of documents along

With documents.

5. Address Form.
6. Vakalatnama

Filed by:-

(NAVEEN TYAGI )
NEW DELHI. ADVOCATE
Ch. No.525, Lawyers Chambers
DATED: 7.2.2023 Dwarka Courts Complex,
NewDelhi
Enrl. No.D-766-A/95
[Link].8800438286
Email:naveentyagi2014@[Link]
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA
COURTS NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. of 2023

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar …Plaintiff

VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants

MEMO OF PARTIES

Sh. Ashok Kumar

S/o [Link] Singh
R/o Village Ujwa,
New Delhi-43 … Plaintiff

Versus

1. Union Of India

2. Gaon Sabha, Ujwa

Through its Panchayat Secretary
BDO Office, Najafgarh,
New Delhi

3. SDM, Najafgarh
Tehsil building, Tuda Mandi,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-43 … Defendants

PLAINTIFF

NEW DELHI. THROUGH

DATE: 07.02.2023
(NAVEEN TYAGI)
Advocate
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA
COURTS NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. of 2023

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar …Plaintiff

VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80 OF CPC FOR EXEMPTION

FROM SERVING THE REQUISITE LEGAL NOTICE TO THE
RESPONDENTS
Most Respectfully Showeth :
1. That the above captioned suit has been preferred by the
Plaintiffs/Applicants seeking a decree of Permanent Injunction
demanding to restrained the defendants from dispossessing and
interfering in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in the Suit
property.

2. That the Contents of the Plaint may please be read as a part and
parcel of this application and the same are not being repeated for
the sake of brevity.

3. That the defendants are the Government officials and there is

mandatory notice to be given before filing the suit against them but
the present suit is urgent in nature as the defendant no.4 are
adamant to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property
hence the completion of mandatory requisite legal notice will
defeat the purpose of filing the present suit.
PRAYER
In the light of the aforesaid it is most humbly prayed that this
Honourable Court may be pleased to exempt the plaintiff/applicant from
the service of mandatory legal notice u/s 80 CPC to be served upon the
defendants, in the interest of Justice.

Delhi Plaintiff/Applicants
Date:-10.02.2023 Through
Counsel
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA
COURTS NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. of 2023

In the matter of:

Sh. Ashok Kumar …Plaintiff

VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants

AFFIDAVIT
Ashok Kumar S/o Late Umed Singh, aged 47 years appx R/o
VPO Ujwa, New Delhi, solemnly affirms on oath as under:-
a. That I have filed the accompanying application and being
conversant with the facts of the case and am competent to swear on
this affidavit.
b. That the contents of the accompanying application may please be
read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not being
reproduced for the sake of brevity.
c. That the contents of the application have been read over to me ins
vernacular and I subscribe to the correctness of the same.

Deponent
Verification: Verified on this 10th February 2023 that the contents of this
aforesaid affidavit of mine are correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.

Deponent