Tue. Nov 24th, 2020

Sumitra Devi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 23 May, 2018

2 min read

(viii) that David Paul, on 18th September, 2005, similarly sold the property to
Mohd. Afzal Salmani son of Mohd. Fazal Salmani; (ix) that Mohd. Afzal
Salmani, on 11th May, 2006, similarly sold the property to Prince Wilson son
of J.I. Wilson; (x) that Prince Wilson, on 27th July, 2006 sold back the
property to Mohd. Afzal Salmani; (xi) that Mohd. Afzal Salmani, on 8th
August, 2007 similarly by way of notarised GPA, Agreement to Sell,
Affidavit, Will, Receipt and Possession Letter sold the property aforesaid to
the plaintiff; (xii) that the plaintiff has been in peaceful and lawful
possession of the property by building a house thereon; (xiii) that the
husband of the plaintiff, on or around 10th December, 2006, obtained
electricity connection with respect to the said house; (xiv) that the property is
bound by a boundary wall; (xv) that the property comprises of a house built
on 300 sq. yds., a swimming pool, lawns, orchards, servant quarters, guard

CS(OS) 138/2017 Page 2 of 12
room etc.; (xvi) that suddenly, on 17th March, 2017, the officials of the
defendants came to the property with 50 armed police personnel and
bulldozer and demolished a portion of the boundary wall, servant quarters,
guard room etc., without any prior notice, order or proceeding claiming that
the property belonged to Gaon Sabha, Dera Mandi; (xvii) that no
demarcation was ever carried out by any official and no notice of any
demarcation was given to the plaintiff; (xviii) that even if Gaon Sabha is
claimed to be the owner of the land, it had lost title to the land as the
possession of the plaintiff thereof is for a period of more than three years;
(xix) that the possession of the plaintiff is lawful and protected by the
provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954; and, (xx) that no
proceedings under Section 84 or 86A of the said Act had been initiated by
the defendants against the plaintiff.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply