IN THE COURT OF MS.
PRIGYA GUPTA, SCJ, RC
(NORTH EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Civil Suit No. 162/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Shri Jagat Singh & Ors. … Plaintiffs
Versus
NCT of Delhi & Anr. … Defendants
Date of hearing: 13.5.2025
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS IN CONTINUATION OF
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 19.10.2024
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. That the above noted case is pending before this
Hon’ble Court and is fixed for 13.5.2025 for appearance
of the plaintiffs/arguments.
2. That the plaintiffs earlier filed the written
submissions for the disposal of the application under
order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC as well
as arguments on the report filed by the B.S. Pundir for
Mapage Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. who had carried out
survey and demarcation of Khasra No. 49/22/2 and
52/2/2 situated in Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
3. That after filing the survey report by the above said
Surveyor this Hon’ble Court passed the detailed order
on 7.12.2024 as this Hon’ble Court was not satisfied
with the Survey Report filed by the Surveyor and
observed that “vide order dated 4.3.2024 of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, a specific direction
was given to the surveyor to specifically
mention as to in what Khasra Number does the
property of the plaintiffs fall. Shri Atul, Senior
Surveyor submits that he shall file a
supplementary report specifically mentioning
whether the suit property falls in Khasra
No.49/22/2 and Khasra No. 52/2/2 or if it falls in
Khasra No. 65 or some other Khasra number for
compliance of order of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants
have no objections to the same.” In compliance of
order dated 7.12.2024, Shri Atul Senior Surveyor who
had given undertaking to file the supplementary report
has not filed the same but the Shri Amod Barthwal,
SDM Karawal Nagar, Delhi filed his report in instead of
report of Shri Atul, Senior Surveyor.
3. That SDM Karawal Nagar, Delhi who filed his report
on 15.2.2025, who was not authorised to file the
Survey report as SDM Karawal Nagar, Delhi was not
present as the spot at the time of survey and
demarcation carried out on 30.04.2024, so the report
filed by the SDM Karawal Nagar, Delhi is vague and
without any substance and cannot be read in evidence
as genuine report. It is pertinent to mention here that
the SDM Karawal Nagar, Delhi in collusion with the
defendant No.2. has filed his report without any
authority as the defendant No. 2 wants to dispossess
the plaintiffs the suit property without following the due
process of law and without any locus standi.
4. That the following points are very relevant and
consideration of this Hon’ble Court for deciding the
interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read
with Section 151 CPC:-
(i) Whether the Surveyor used as reference point No.1
South-East Corner of Khasra No. 30/12 as Corner of Shri
Bankey Behari Sweet shop is situated or established
before Chak bandi/Consolidation of the area or shown
in Aks Sajra/site plan or field book?
(ii) Whether the Surveyor used as reference point No.2
South-West Corner of Khasra No. 38-17/2 as Corner of
Shyam Tower is situated or established before Chak
bandi/Consolidation of the area or shown in Aks
Sajra/site plan or field book?
(iii) Whether the Surveyor used as reference point
No.3 North-East Corner of phirni of Lal Dora (Khasra
No.197) as Corner of Shyam Dairy is situated or
established before Chakbandi/Consolidation of the area
or shown in Aks Sajra/site plan or field book?
(iv) Whether the Surveyor as well as Revenue
Department Team verified old specific points for
measurement of the distance from the point as took by
the Surveyor to the point of the property in question?
5. That the surveyor filed his report dated 12.8.2024
in utter violation of Principle of law and natural justice
as the above said points took to demarcate the suit
property without consent and admission of the
representative of the plaintiffs who were present at the
time of demarcation who had objected to choose the
points for references No. 1 to 3 as there was no fixed
point to demarcate the suit property because the
points of references No. 1 to 3 are not old or fixed
points. It is pertinent to mention here that the
representative of the plaintiffs requested the surveyor
as well as officials of Revenue department to show the
fixed points for demarcation of the suit property in Aks
Sijra, site plan or field book but they failed to show the
same and demarcated the suit property as per their
convenient on the instigation of the defendant No.2. In
this regard the representative of the plaintiffs made the
Video in his Mobile No.9278339055 in which the
officials of the revenue department Govt. of NCT of
Delhi admitted that there are no reference points
which be referred to as authentic reference point and
the surveyor also admitted in his report dated
12.8.2024 specifically mentioned in para No. 4 of his
report that “here in this case as the village is
completely urbanised, there are no reference
point which may be referred to as authentic
reference points”.
6. That the demarcation report dated 18.8.2024 and
15.2.2025 are in gross violation of the procedure
established by Delhi High Court rules which are
mandatory requirement for demarcation of boundary
dispute. It is pertinent to mention here that the
plaintiffs are in continuous and uninterrupted settled
possession of the land forming Khasra No. 49/22/2 and
52/2/2 measuring total 3 Bighas 10 Biswass situated at
Revenue Estate of Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi from
the last 40 years in their own rights of their forefathers
through son of Late Shri Ghasi Ram Fatwa and same is
reflected in the revenue record of 1969 and the said
land has been shown as abadi land. Now through the
said demarcation report the defendants are trying to
grab the aforesaid suit property of the plaintiffs
without due process of law. Thus, in order to identify
the boundaries in dispute the defendant No.2 while
demarcating the property of Khasra No. 65 is liable to
follow instruments as mentioned in Chapter-I part–M as
mentioned in Volume 1 Delhi High Court Rules.
7. That as per the Delhi High Court Rules it is
mandatory duty of field Kanungo he must explain in
detail how he made his measurement, the report is
silent on this aspect. It is also necessary and
mandatory requirement, when taking his
measurements the Field Kanungo should have to
explain to the parties what he is doing and should
enquire, from them whether they wish anything further
to be done to elucidate the matter in dispute. At the
end he should record the statements of all the parties
to the effort that they have seen and understood the
measurements that they have no objection to make to
this (or if they have any objection he should recorded
together with his own opinion). In the present
demarcation, the principle of natural justice has been
violated as no opportunity given to the parties to raise
objection at any point of time and violated Delhi High
Court Rules.
8. That admittedly the demarcation report filed by
surveyor is based on approximation carried out on the
starting points which is far away and from there on the
basis of approximation and imagination and while
coming on the property of the plaintiffs i.e. Khasra No.
49/22/2 and 52/2/2 which is admeasuring 3 Bighas 10
Biswas has been illegally shown as land of Khasra No.
65 without any basis.
9. That it is pertinent to mention here that the earlier
counsel for the plaintiffs submitted before this Hon’ble
Court regarding surveyor’s demarcation report dated
12.8.2024 that he does not dispute the demarcation
report as filed by the defendant and has no objection to
the same. It is further submitted that
submissions/admissions of the earlier counsel for the
plaintiffs submitted before this Hon’ble Court regarding
no dispute in respect of surveyor’s demarcation report
dated 12.8.2024 without the consent, discussion and
knowledge of the plaintiffs, who are the masters of
their case to prove or disprove the contents of the
document/demarcation report as the earlier counsel
not having the knowledge of the area where the suit
property is situated. The plaintiffs are rely on the
judgement of Bombay High Court in case titled as
Bhima Tima Dhotre Vs The Pioneer Chemical Co. on 23
June, 1967
10. That the reports filed by the Surveyor and the
SDM Karawal Nagar, Delhi are based on surmises and
conjecture and not having full proof of truth of
admissibility.
11. That the defendants are adamant to dispossess
and demolish the property of the plaintiffs as they have
hand to glove with local influencers. It is pertinent to
mention here that the acts of the defendants are
crystal clear from the letter dated 3.3.2016 issued by
the defendant No. 2 to the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, North-East District for providing sufficient police
force for taking over the possession of the Govt. land
of Khasra No. 49/22/2 and 52/2/2 of Banthala Escape
Drain in Karawal Nagar, of Mustfabad Constituency
which was obtained through RTI from the office of
Executive Engineer, Civil Division IV, Irrigation and
Flood Control Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on
4.12.2018.
12. That the surveyor as well as officials of Revenue
Department have not followed the principle and
method to demarcate the property of the plaintiffs as
per rule of law as the defendant No.2 is not owner of
the Khasra No. 65 Banthla Escape Drain in Karawal
Nagar, of Mustfabad Constituency which is admitted by
the defendant No. 2 that the Khasra No. 65, Banthla
Escape Drain in Karawal Nagar is belonging to the U.P.
Government.
13. That the contents of the reports of Surveyor
dated 12.8.2024 and SDM Karawal Nagar, Delhi
dated 15.2.2025 are not admitted and not
believe as genuine as per Section 61 of Indian
Evidence Act.
14. That the reports of Surveyor and SDM Karawal
Nagar, Delhi are not genuine or correct and as per law
as such the same are not tenable in the eyes of law
and are liable to be discard/rejected.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
discard/reject the reports of Surveyor and SDM Karawal
Nagar, Delhi and allow the application of the plaintiffs
under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC,
in the interest of justice.
PLAINTIFFS
DELHI. THROUGH
DATED: 9.5.2025 (SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA)
ADVOCATE
