Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS No.649/25 Rabina Vs DUSIB Page No. 1 of 4
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE NORTH,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CS SCJ No. 649/25
RABINA ……..Plaintiff
Vs.
DELHI URBAN SHELTER
IMPORVEMENT BOARD ……..Defendant
02.07.2025
Present: Sh. Ashish Pathak and Sh. Sandeep Kumar Ld.
Counsels for plaintiff.
Sh. Munish Kumar Ld. Counsel for defendant
with Sh. Jitender Kumar, A.E. on behalf of
Director DUSIB.
Submissions heard.
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a
relief of injunction to the effect that defendant DUSIB be
restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and
be further restrained from issuing illegal notice to the plaintiff
threatening her to dispossess from the suit property and further
a relief of declaration of ownership over the suit property.
2. It is stated by the plaintiff that the suit property i.e.
F-378, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi was initially allotted to one
Dharamraj who had sold it to one Dhashrath Devi and
-- 1 of 4 --
CS No.649/25 Rabina Vs DUSIB Page No. 2 of 4
Dharshrath Devi had sold the property to the plaintiff on
02.07.2024 by way of GPA, Agreement to Sell etc.
3. It is stated that on 17.06.2025, a notice was affixed by
DUSIB on the suit property issuing directions for vacation of
the suit property. It is stated that the said notice is unlawful as
no personal hearing has been given to the plaintiff.
4. Upon notice, the defendant has appeared through A.E.
Sh. Jitender Kumar with the counsel Sh. Munish Kumar and it
is stated on behalf of defendant that the present suit filed by the
plaintiff is without any cause of action and is liable to be
dismissed. It is stated that as per Sec.45 of DUSIB Act, the
plaintiff can approach the L.G. Delhi against the vacation
notice. It is stated that a survey was conducted and a
provisional possession slip was given to Sh. Dharamraj in the
year 2006, however, the said person did not obtain the actual
possession and as per the record of DUSIB, the suit property
has not been allotted to any person. It is further stated that even
if the assertion of the plaintiff is accepted, it is the policy that no
ownership right are conferred on the allottee and the same can
be taken back by the defendant, if the same is sold, let out or
transferred in any manner to any one.
5. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the
plaintiff is not the owner of suit property and is an unauthorised
occupant having no right, title or interest in the suit property
and issuance of notice of vacation to the plaintiff is as per law.
It is stated that there is no cause of action in the plaintiff to file
the present suit.
-- 2 of 4 --
CS No.649/25 Rabina Vs DUSIB Page No. 3 of 4
6. At the outset, notice can be taken of the fact that the
defendant/DUSIB was created by the Act of 2010 as successor
to Slum and JJ Department. Sec.41 of DUSIB Act grants the
defendant the power to issue show cause notice for eviction and
eviction of an unauthorised occupant U/s 42 of DUSIB Act.
Sec. 44 of the Act grants the power to L.G. to entertain revision
against any order passed by the defendant.
7. It is settled position of law that an injunction cannot be
granted against a statutory authority from performing its duty
under the statute. Reliance in this regard can be placed on
Goa
Pollution Control Board Vs State of Goa 2023 SCC Online
BOM P-37.
8. It is also necessary to mention that the plaintiff has
asserted her claim on the suit property on the basis of GPA,
Agreement to Sell etc. executed by Dashrath Devi on
02.07.2024. The said documents are notarised documents and
do not confer any valid title. Even otherwise, Dashrath Devi
was not authorised to create any right in favour of the plaintiff
in the suit property as she herself did not have any right in the
property. It is the admitted position that one Dharamraj was the
original allottee and as per the provisional occupancy
certificate, the suit property was given on license and was not
transferable.
9. The notice issued by DUSIB on 16.06.2025 mentions
that the plaintiff has been directed to vacate the premises
completely before 02.07.2025 failing which the department
-- 3 of 4 --
CS No.649/25 Rabina Vs DUSIB Page No. 4 of 4
shall initiate the action as per rule. In the considered opinion of
this court, a statutory authority cannot be restrained from
performing its function as per the statute. Further, the plaintiff
has admittedly purchased the suit property from a person
having no right, title or interest in the suit property and
accordingly, the plaintiff cannot claim to have any cause of
action with respect to the relief of injunction against the
defendant with respect to the suit property.
10. It requires no reiteration that the relief of declaration to
the effect that plaintiff be declared owner of the suit property is
without any merit as it is the case of the plaintiff itself that the
suit property, which was allotted initially on license basis to one
Dharamraj, was non transferable. Thus, the documents
executed by Dharamraj in favour of Dashrath Devi and by
Dashrath Devi in favour of plaintiff, have no value in the eyes
of law.
11. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the plaint
of the plaintiff stands rejected U/o 7 rule 11 (a) CPC.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/02.07.2025
-- 4 of 4 --