1
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (N-W)
DISTRICT COURTS ROHINI, DELHI – 110085
CASE NO. C.S. _______________/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S PARVATI MINERALS PVT LTD
THROUGH IT’S A.R. SH. SURYA PARKASH …..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Most respectfully submitted as under:-
1. That the plaintiff is a private limited company and in the
present suit appointed Sh. Surya Parkash (U.I.D. no.
8862-0818-7126) to represented the present case details
of which are stated under the memo of parties. In this
respect appropriate resolution passed in favour of the
Director of the company authorizing him to conduct the
present case in all manners which is annexed as
Annexure-1.
2. That the plaintiff for agriculture purposes purchased
agriculture land comprising Khasra no. 51//2 (1-00),
total admeasuring 1 bigha situated in the revenue estate
of Village Nizampur, Delhi-110081 (hereinafter called
the suit property) for a valuable consideration amount
of Rs. 25,50,000/- in lieu of which the earlier recorded
owner / vendor executed a Sale Deed in favour of the
plaintiff duly registered with office of the Sub-registrar
concerned bearing registration no. 88 Book no. 1,
Volume no. 1972, pages 14-27 on 31.01.2022.
Thereafter, on the basis of the sale deed name of the
plaintiff entered into revenue record in compliance of
order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Tehsildar
concerned. Copy of Sale Deed dated 31.01.2022, copy
the khata Khatoni obtained from official website of the
Revenue Department & Photographs of the suit property
are annexed as Annexure-1, 2 & 3.
3. That the plaintiff, purchased the suit property for
agriculture purposes and in the present circumstances
with the passage of time, the area adjoining the suit
property developed and the crops grown by the plaintiffs
stood damaged by the stray animals / cattle as well as by
the residents living in adjoining unauthorized colonies.
The plaintiff having knowledge of the observation made /
passed in several cases by the Hon’ble High Court of
3
Delhi at New Delhi thought of raising/constructing the
boundary wall to protect the crops from being damaged.
4. That in respect of, the plaintiff raising boundary wall on
the suit property for protecting the same from stray
animals/ cattle, throwing of garbage by adjoining
unknown elements and to preserve quality of agriculture
land, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at new Delhi in case
Under the title “Gaon Sabha Nanakheri Vs Sucheta
Memorial Trust” made the observation in order dated
20.09.2018 as under:-
…….10. At this stage, this Court would like to state that
though no height of the boundary wall is prescribed or
specified as per the DLR Act or its Rules, or Delhi Land
Revenue Act or its Rules, since however, inspections
have to take place of the agricultural lands and those
lands which are subject matter of Section 81 of the DLR
Act, twice a year for making khasra girdwari, or
otherwise also to ensure that provisions of the DLR Act
and Rules or Delhi Land Revenue Act and Rules are
complied with, it is ordered that a wall which is
constructed for bounding the land of a land holder, under
the DLR Act, should not exceed 5 feet in height, and this
observation is being made specifically restricted to those
lands which are used for the purposes as specified in
Section 81 of the DLR Act…..
……….11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
Reference is answered by holding that, there is no
express or implied bar either under the DLR Act and
Rules or under the Delhi Land Revenue Act and Rules, for
a land holder of those lands which are subject matter of
Section 81 of the DLR Act, to construct a boundary wall
around his land, and such boundary wall can be
constructed on the land by the land holder, with the
clarification that the height of the boundary wall
will not exceed 5 feet in height. Reference is
accordingly answered and now parties will appear before
the Deputy Commissioner/Collector (South West) Delhi
on 30th October, 2018. The Original Reference file be
sent back to the concerned Deputy Collector after
retaining a copy of the file O. Ref. No.1/15 in this Court
alongwith copy of today’s judgment………..
5. That the plaintiff raised the boundary wall on the suit
property which is not more than 5 feet in height as per
observation passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi At
New Delhi. And presently the crop of wheat partly
damaged is harvested by the plaintiff and now the land is
vacant. Thereafter, the plaintiff erected the boundary
wall in view of the observation stated above.
5
6. That on 21.04.2023 the officials from the defendant
along with local police came to the suit property and
demolished the boundary wall of the suit property
without prior intimation / information to the plaintiff. It
was third party who took the photographs on the spot
and informed the plaintiff accordingly and handed over
the photographs taken during the demolition program.
Photographs of demolition are annexed as Annexure-4.
7. That the most important point of law in the present suit
is that the suit property is agriculture land and governed
by Delhi Land Reform Act / Revenue Act and rules also.
The section 507 of DMC Act as well as any act / rule /
notification of the defendant is not applicable on the suit
property as the village Nizampur is not urbanized vide
notification no. F. 7 / 7 9 / A D L B / 2 0 1 6 /
CD-000383132/3827-3841 dated 16.05.2017 and
another notification no. F7(128)/DLB/
2019/000580156/14600-15 dated 20.11.2019. In other
words, the defendant as well as DMC has not interference
involving the suit property as the same was governed by
DLR Act 1954. Copies of both the notifications are
annexed as Annexure-5 & 6.
8. That the plaintiff being aggrieved by the conduct of the
defendant that they chose the pick and choose policy and
did not demolish the boundary wall of another land which
is adjoining the suit property, the circumstances/
conditions which restrained the defendant from
demolishing the boundary wall adjoining the suit
property, the reasons of which are best known to the
defendant. The defendant did not touch the boundary
wall of Khasra no. 73/16 and 77/3 situated in village
Ghevra which is not far away from the suit property. In
this respect counsel for the plaintiff made a complaint to
the defendant on 29.04.2022 under intimation to District
magistrate, Distt. North-West, Kanjhawala, Delhi as well
as The Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Raj Niwas Marg,
Delhi-110054. Copy of the application dated 29.04.2023
is annexed as Annexure-7.
9. That apart from above, certain information has been
sought from the defendant as well as local police by
counsel for the plaintiff under DRTI and RTI dated
24.04.2023 respectively. The requisite information
sought are in respect of demolition carried out on
7
21.04.2023 at 2PM in the area of Nizampur, Delhi, suit
property is part of that. The stipulated period for filing
the reply is 30 days and the same is going to expire on
23.05.2023, therefore, the reply is awaited from the
respective departments.
10. That the cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant arose on 21.04.2023 in the
afternoon around 2 PM when the defendant demolished
the suit property without intimating the plaintiff as well
as without due process of law. Further, on 24.04.2023
the agent on behalf of the plaintiff went to office of the
defendant to enquire about the demolition of boundary
wall. It is the defendant who threatened the agent of the
plaintiff and directed to apprise the plaintiff in person
that the boundary wall shall be demolished again in case
the same is repaired or constructed again. Apart from
above, it is stated that the defendant is not under legal
obligation to inform the plaintiff w.r.t. demolition of the
boundary wall though the suit property falls in un-
urbanized village and the same is governed by the DLR
Act 1954. The conduct of the defendant establishes that
there is every possibility of demolishing the boundary
wall or the suit property without any due process of law
as defendant has no respect for law of the land,
therefore, the threat/ cause of action is still continue and
subsisting as on date.
11. That the present suit is valued at Rs. - for the relief of
permanent injunction, hence, a fixed court fee of Rs.
13/- is affixed upon the plaint.
12. That the suit property is situated in the jurisdiction of
P.S. Kanjhawala, hence, this Hon’ble Court has territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
13. That the plaintiff has not sought any other efficacious
remedy on the same cause of action except the present
suit. Further, it is humbly submitted that the plaintiff
reserve their right to file / claim, damages towards the
demolition carried out by the defendant, as per law.
PRAYER:-
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the
case this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass a
decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and
9
against the defendant, their agents, assigns, attorney,
servants etc. from forcibly further demolition of boundary wall
on the suit property i.e. agriculture land comprising Khasra no.
51//22(1-00), total admeasuring 1 bigha situated in the
revenue estate of Village Nizampur Rasidpur, Delhi-110081.
Pass any such other order/orders as this Hon’ble court deems
fit and proper in the interest of justice.
It is prayed for accordingly.
A.R. OF THE PLAINTIFF
Through
Counsel
Date:
Place : Delhi
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of May, 2023 that the contents
of Para No. 1 to 9 are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and that of Para No. 11 to 13 are
believed to be true based on the legal advice received.
A.R. OF THE PLAINTIFF
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (N-W)
DISTRICT COURTS ROHINI, DELHI – 110085
CASE NO. C.S. _______________/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S PARVATI MINERALS PVT LTD
THROUGH IT’S A.R. SH. SURYA PARKASH …..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Surya Parkash S/o Sh. Ayodhia Prasad R/o H. No. 126/3,
Gali no.5, Shankar Garden, Linepar, Bahadurgarh, Distt.
Jhajjar, Haryana-124507 being A.R. of the M/s Parvati Minerals
Pvt Ltd., GF-35, Omaxe Square, Jasola, Delhi-110021, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I being A.R. of the Plaintiff in the present suit am
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case,
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the present accompanying Suit for Permanent
Injunction has been drafted by my counsel under my
instructions contents of which I have understood.
3. That the accompanying suit may please be read as part
and parcel of this affidavit as the contents of the same
are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
11
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this day of May, 2023 that the contents
of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed.
DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (N-W)
DISTRICT COURTS ROHINI, DELHI – 110085
CASE NO. C.S. _______________/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S PARVATI MINERALS PVT LTD …..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….DEFENDANT
APPLICATION U/O XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 R/W SEC 151 CPC FOR
INTERIM RELIEF
Most respectfully submitted as under:
1. That the Plaintiff/Applicant has filed the accompanying
suit for Permanent Injunction, containing the detailed
averments which are not repeated herein for the sake of
brevity praying that the same may please be also read as
part and parcel of this application.
2. That the plaintiff/ applicant has a very good case to
succeed in the present suit as he is in well settled very
long possession of the suit property and also have a
prima facie good case.
3. That the Plaintiff/Applicant has balance of convenience in
his favour and against the defendant.
13
4. That in case the defendant succeed in implementing his
threat and evil design to demolish the boundary wall of
the plaintiff on the suit property without due process of
law, it will cause irreparable losses / injury to the Plaintiff
/Applicant and will involve them in endless litigations
which injuries is not likely to be compensated in terms of
money.
5. That the Plaintiff/Applicant has real grievances and
imminent apprehension of violation of their rights at the
hands of the defendant who believe in manipulation and
taking the law in its own hands being the government
authority, the interim relief sought through this
application merits to be granted even without hearing the
other side i.e. defendant.
P R A Y E R:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to restrain the defendant, his
agents, servants, managers, etc, etc. from further demolishing
the boundary wall of the suit property i.e. agriculture land
comprising Khasra no. 51//22(1-00), total admeasuring 1
bigha situated in the revenue estate of Village Nizampur
Rasidpur, Delhi-110081 without due process of law, during the
pendency of the case.
Pass any such other order / orders as this Hon’ble court deems
fit and proper in the interest of justice.
It is prayed for accordingly.
APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
Through
Counsel
Date:
Place : Delhi
15
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF LD. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, (N-W)
DISTRICT COURTS ROHINI, DELHI – 110085
CASE NO. C.S. _______________/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S PARVATI MINERALS PVT LTD
THROUGH IT’S A.R. SH. SURYA PARKASH …..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Surya Parkash S/o S____ R/o H. No. 12_____1, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I being A.R. of the Plaintiff in the present suit am
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case,
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the present accompanying Application U/o XXXIX
Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been drafted by my counsel under
my instructions contents of which I have understood.
3. That the accompanying application may please be read
as part and parcel of this affidavit as the contents of the
same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Delhi on this day of May, 2023 that the contents
of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed.
DEPONENT
