The Delhi High Court has declined to pass a summary judgment in the commercial suit filed by Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Private Limited against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The company sought a ₹459 crore refund in connection with a disputed commercial property in Jasola, New Delhi, acquired through auction.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, while delivering the verdict, highlighted that summary judgment could not be granted without evaluating the contentious issues concerning possession of the property. The court emphasized:
"Without offering possession of the plot back to the DDA, or at least establishing that the rightful owner is already in possession, the plaintiff cannot claim refund.”
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Refuses to Recognise TikTok as a Well-Known Trademark Due to Ongoing Ban in India
The case involves a commercial plot that was part of land originally owned by Smt. Simla Devi. Although DDA had auctioned it and executed a conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff (then Amazon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.), later judicial decisions declared the land acquisition as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Reliance claimed it lost possession of the property when alleged encroachers forcibly took control in 2016. The company contended that since DDA no longer had title over the land after the court rulings, the sale was invalid, entitling them to a refund.
“The DDA has retrospectively lost its title over the land, thus the conveyance to the plaintiff has become void,” argued the plaintiff’s senior counsel.
However, DDA strongly opposed the claim, asserting that the company was still in possession of the property and had not offered it back. The authority further argued that the plaintiff had not impleaded the alleged trespassers, and that oral evidence was essential to resolve the possession issue.
“The plaintiff continues to retain possession and cannot demand a refund without returning the land,” DDA submitted.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Res judicata applies to different stages of the same case, not just different proceedings
Justice Mahajan ruled that since the question of actual possession was both contentious and unresolved, the matter required a full trial involving oral evidence. The court found that the defence raised by DDA was neither baseless nor illusory.
“Recording of oral evidence appears to be imperative as regards the issue of possession, which this Court finds to be contentious and triable,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the summary judgment application filed under Order XIII-A Rule 4 of CPC and scheduled further directions in the main suit (CS(COMM) 582/2021) before the Roster Bench on August 28, 2025.
Case title: Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited v. DDA
Case no.: CS(COMM) 582/2021
