A woman's plea seeking damages from the DDA for dispossessing her family from their ancestral land adjacent to the Safdarjung Hospital, has been dismissed by a Delhi court which said it was a "frivolous litigation".
The court also slapped costs of Rs 60,000 on the woman, the plaintiff, with a direction that Rs 30,000 be paid to the DDA and the other half to the District Legal Service Authority, South.
"Court is not an idle, docile and mindless spectator which is powerless to bring frivolous litigation to an early end and the court is not a slave of proceedings.
Also Read
"The plaintiff wasted precious court hours as well as caused defendants to bear the brunt of frivolous litigation and the plaintiff must recompense the court as well as defendants," Additional District Judge Neera Bharihoke said.
The judge said the case was a glaring example of how the plaintiff "made a mockery of the law, courts and judicial system by changing her stand."
According to the plaintiff, the suit was initiated in 2000 for declaration, injunction and damages with respect to the suit property i.e. the land measuring 300 bighas adjacent to the Safdarjung Hospital and facing erstwhile Kamal Cinema at Safdarjung Enclave in south Delhi.
It was submitted that the DDA had been threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from their land since a long time and in 2008 they acquired a part of that land for a Sports Injury Centre, which was built ahead of the Commonwealth Games, 2010.
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA), however, claimed that the land was acquired by the government through a century old notification, thus the suit filed in 2000 was barred by time.
It further said the suit was barred by Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 and plaintiffs were attempting to encroach the government land.
The court, while dismissing the suit, said the woman kept changing her stand through the proceedings, with respect of description of the property, extent of the property under their possession, nature of their possession over the suit property as well as the reliefs claimed as the case progressed.
"The present suit has been filed in 2000 and the period of limitation expired much earlier. Further, the plaintiffs came to know about their title, if any, to the suit property, to have fallen into cloud as early as in 1962 under the old Limitation Act as well as in 1980, when the Act 1963 had already come into force but they filed simple suit for injunction without seeking any relief of declaration and thus the present suit is besides being barred by limitation, is also barred under Code of Civil Procedure," the court said.
It said the plaintiffs have not been able to raise any bona fide dispute in respect of title of the property.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
