LexKHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 299 KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 7773 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 B [G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Suit for declaration of title and injunction - Period of limitation - Held: Period prescribed under Article 58 of the 1963 Act begins to run when C the right to sue first accrues - If a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues - Successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of D limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued - In the instant case, the right, if any, of the plaintiffs- appellants over the suit land stood violated with the issue of notification uls.507ofthe DMC Act in 1966(whereby the same automatically vested in the Central Government) and, in any E case, with the issue of notification u/s.~2(1) of the DD Act in 1974(whereby the Central Government transferred the suit land to DOA) - Even if the appellants were to plead ignorance about the two notifications, it is impossible to believe that they did not know about the violation of their so- F called right over the suit land despite the receipt of copy of the written statement filed on behalf of the DOA in December, 1990 - Therefore, the cause of action will be deemed to have accrued to the appellants in December, 1990 and the suit filed on 14.2.2000 was clearly barred by time - Although, the suit G of 2000 was cleverly drafted to convey an impression that the right to sue accrued to the appellants in November/December, 1998 when they learnt about the wrong recorc!ing of entries in Khasra Girdawris/Revenue Records, but falsity of the 299 H 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A appellants claim that the cause of action accrued to them in November/December, 1998 is established beyond any doubt - The suit filed by the appellants on 14.2.2000 was clearly beyond the period of limitation of 3 years prescribed under Article 58 of the 1963 Act - The findings and conclusions B recorded by the trial Court that the appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands inasmuch as they withheld Aks Sijra, site plan and the demarcation report and award are also approved - Not only this, thpy raised illegal construction despite the injunction order pa~ed by the High C Court and that too without obtaining permission from the competent authority - The appellants, who not only made encroachment on the public land, but also abused the process of the Court are saddled with cost, which is quantified at Rs.5 lacs - Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - D s.507 - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - s.22(1). E Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Differences between Art.58 of the 1963 Limitation Act and Art.120 of the 1908 Limitation Act - Discussed - Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Article 120. Appellant No.2-'L' and his three brothers, who claim to have purchased land comprised in khasra Nos.27281 167412 and 27281167413 total measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas by a registered sale deed dated 15-10-1963, raised F construction thereon and started a restaurant. With a view to secure judicial approval of such occupation of land, appellant No.2 - 'L' filed Suit No. 257611990 in the High Court for grant of permanent injunction against the MCD and the DDA by asserting that he was co-owner of G house No.SO, Ward No.IX, Kishangarh, Mehrauli, which formed part of khasra No.1674 and was purchased vide registered sale deed and that the officials of MCD and the ODA came to the suit premises along with the Tahsildar on 10.8.1990 without serving any notice and threatened H to demolish the superstructure on the ground that the KHATRI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. v. 301 UNION OF INDIA same was unauthorized. In the written statement filed on A behalf of the DOA, it was averred that the suit land belonged to Gaon Sabha and with the urbanization of rural areas of Kishangarh, the same automatically vested in the Central Government and further that vide notification dated 20.8.1974 issued under Section 22(1) of B the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Central Government had transferred the suit land to the ODA and the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the same. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.