Suit for possession and declaration filed after sixty years of dispossession is patently barred by limitation.

The Appellant filed a civil suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, possession, and damages regarding land in Khasra No. 380/44, Village Shadi Pur, Delhi

She claimed to be the recorded owner through inheritance from her father, Sh. Sehju Ram

While other portions of her father's land were acquired in 1964 via Award No. 1714, she alleged this specific Khasra was never notified or acquired, yet Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (MCD and Tata Power) encroached upon it by constructing a toilet and installing a transformer

The Appellant relied on an RTI reply from 2017 stating the land was not acquired

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, holding the suit was barred by limitation as possession was admittedly lost in 1964

The Appellant then filed this second regular appeal

1. Whether a suit for possession filed in 2024 is barred by limitation when the plaintiff admits dispossession occurred in 1964

2. Whether the court can issue a negative declaration that land was "never acquired" or direct the Government to initiate acquisition proceedings

3. Whether the suit was maintainable without the mandatory statutory notices under Section 80 CPC and Sections 477/478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act

The court primarily applied Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC regarding the rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law

It relied on Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a 30-year limitation period for suits by or on behalf of the Government, but noted that even under that extended period, the Appellant’s claim exceeded the limit

The court further applied the principle that civil suits are for enforcing existing legal rights, not for compelling legislative or statutory policy actions like land acquisition

Additionally, it noted the mandatory requirement of 60 days' notice under Section 80 of the CPC and Sections 477/478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, prior to instituting a suit against government bodies

The Court reasoned that by the Appellant’s own admission, possession of the suit land was taken by the Respondents in 1964 at the time of Award No. 1714

Consequently, a suit filed 60 years later in 2024 is patently barred by the 30-year limitation period for recovering possession

The Court observed that while the Appellant might be the recorded owner, the lapse of time barred her right to claim the remedy of possession

Furthermore, the Court held that the relief seeking a "negative declaration" (that the land was not acquired) is not maintainable under the law

Regarding the prayer to direct the government to acquire the land, the Court determined this to be a matter of public policy beyond the court’s jurisdiction to compel

Finally, the failure to serve mandatory statutory notices to the MCD and Government departments rendered the suit procedurally defective

The Court held that the suit was patently barred by limitation as the cause of action for possession arose in 1964

It further held that no substantial question of law was raised and that the relief sought—compelling the government to acquire property or seeking a negative declaration—was legally impermissible

The order of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was affirmed