High Court upholds dismissal of suit claiming title over urbanised khasra; DDA may proceed to reclaim acquired land

A Single Judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh heard the second appeal by Nathu Ram (now deceased, represented by legal heirs) against an Appellate Court judgment that had set aside a trial decree and dismissed a suit seeking perpetual injunction restraining the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing construction. The dispute concerned whether the suit property fell in Khasra No. 48/7 (private land claimed by the plaintiffs) or in Khasra No. 48/5 (land acquired and placed at the disposal of DDA).

The Court dismissed the second appeal and refused to interfere with concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving title to government-acquired land. The judge observed that the Local Commissioner’s demarcation report could not be relied upon because permanent reference points were not ascertainable and the report proceeded on approximation. The Court stressed established legal principles that “reflection of a party’s name in the revenue records cannot confer title,” and that “mere sporadic or stray entries in the revenue records cannot confer title.” The Court further noted that “due process of law means nobody ought to be condemned unheard” and that due process had been satisfied by the contested proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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. 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 authorized to recognize 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.”

Background The plaintiffs — Surat Singh and his son Nathu Ram — sued in 1984 for perpetual injunction claiming ancestral ownership and settled possession of about 2,500 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No. 48/7, and sought protection for a house at 20-B Krishna Nagar. DDA’s pleaded case was that the disputed area fell in Khasra No. 48/5 which had been acquired by the Union of India (Award No.1170/61) and placed at DDA’s disposal; DDA denied plaintiffs’ title and alleged unauthorised occupation. The Trial Court appointed a Tehsildar as Local Commissioner, but he reported that permanent demarcation points were not ascertainable; that report was ultimately discarded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court accepted testimony and certain revenue records and granted relief to the plaintiffs in 2011. On DDA’s appeal, the Appellate Court in 2020 held that the plaintiffs had not proved their documents, that marked revenue materials were not properly exhibited or proved, and that the trial court had erred in relying on approximation-based demarcation; it reversed and dismissed the suit. The High Court in the present second appeal reiterated the settled rule that claims against government land required clear proof (and cited R. Hanumaiah and related authorities), held that sporadic revenue entries did not confer title, and found no substantial question of law warranting interference. The Court noted prior litigation concerning the same khasra and observed that protracted delays in such suits impeded public interest; it dismissed the second appeal and recorded that DDA was free to take steps in accordance with law. The judgment also recorded earlier interim orders (including a 1995 injunction against demolition) and permitted the DDA to proceed subject to legal process.

Case Details: Case No.: RSA 64/2020 Case Title: Nathu Ram v. D.D.A & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pramod K. Ahuja, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate; Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Abhay, Patwari