SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for possession against the defendants. Defendant No. 3 is in possession of the land in question, which is stated to have been taken over for road widening. The suit was filed as far back as in the year 1979. The amendment application has been filed by the applicant / defendant no. 3 in the year 2005 after 26 years of filing of the suit. The amendment seeks to incorporate in the written statement what is claimed by the applicant / defendant No. 3 to be a legal preliminary objection to the effect that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 192 of the Punjab municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the Municipal Act ). ( 2 ) THE submission of learned senior counsel for defendant No. 3 / applicant is that this being a legal objecfon can be taken at any stage of time. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of this court to the amended provisions of Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the Code ). The provision reads as under:"order VI pleadings GENERALLY r. 17. Amendment of pleadings. A The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties : provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. " (emphasis supplied) ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that trial had already commenced prior to the amendment being sought. In view of the proviso, the amendment cannot be allowed unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. " (emphasis supplied) ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that trial had already commenced prior to the amendment being sought. In view of the proviso, the amendment cannot be allowed unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The question sought to be raised is in view of the provisions of the Municipal Act and, thus, it cannot be said that despite due diligence, the same could not be raised. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff points out that it is not merely a legal objection which is sought to be taken, but has certain factual ramifications. In order to appreciate it, the Section itself would have to be referred to and is as under:"192. Building scheme. A- (1) The committee may, and if so required by the Deputy Commissioner shall, within six months of the date of such requisition, draw up a building scheme for built areas,a nd a town planning scheme for unbuilt areas, which may among other things provide for the following matters, namely:- (a) the restriction of the erection or re- erection of buildings or any class of "buildings in the whole or any part of the municipality, and of the use to which they may be put; (b) the prescription of a building line on either side or both sides of any street existing or proposed; and (c) the amount of land in such unbuilt area which shall be transferred to the committee for public purposes including use as public streets by owners of land either on payment of compensation or otherwise, provided that the total amount so transferred shall not exceed thirty five per cent and the amount transferred without payment shall not exceed twenty five per cent, of any one owner s land within such unbuilt area. (2) When a scheme has been drawn up under the provisions of sub-section (2) the committee shall give public notice of such scheme and shall at the same time intimate a date not less than thirty days from the date of such notice by which any person may submit to the committee in writing any objection or suggestion with regard to such scheme which he may wish to make. (3) The committee shall consider every objection or suggestion with regard to the scheme which may be received by the date intimated under the provisions of sub-sections (2) and may modify the scheme in consequence of any such objection or suggestion and shall then forward such scheme as originally drawn up or as modified to the Deputy commissioner, who may, if he thinks fit, return it to the committee for reconsideration and resubmission by a specified date; and the Deputy commissioner shall submit the plans as forwarded, or as resubmitted, as the case may be, with his opinion to the state Government, who may sanction such scheme or may refuse to sanction it, or may return it to the committee for reconsideration and resubmission by a specified date. (4) If a committee fails to submit a scheme within six months or being required to do so under sub-section (1) or fails to resubmit a scheme by a specified date, when required to do so under sub-section (3) or resubmits a scheme which is not approved by the state Government, the Deputy commissioner may draw up a scheme of which public notice shall be given by notification and by publication within the municipality together with an intimation of the date by which any person may submit in writing to the deputy Commissioner any objection or suggestion which he may wish to make, and the Deputy Commissioner shall forward with his opinion any such objection or suggestion to the State government and the State Government may sanction such scheme as originally notified or modified in consequence of any such objection" or suggestion, as the State Government may think fit; and the cost of such scheme or such portion of the cost as the State government may deem fit shall be defrayed from the municipal fund. (5) When sanctioning a scheme the state Government may impose conditions for the submission of periodical reports on the progress of the scheme to the Deputy Commissioner or to the State Government, and for the inspection and supervision of the scheme by the State Government. " (emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff also points out that the aforesaid provision refers to a building scheme. " (emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff also points out that the aforesaid provision refers to a building scheme. This scheme envisages the committee to draw up the building scheme and in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 192 of the Municipal Act, the amount of land has to be transferred to the committee for public purpose including as public streets. This is the provision sought to be relied upon by learned senior counsel for defendant No. 3 / applicant. The plea of learned senior counsel is that such transfer of land for public streets can be either on payment of compensation or otherwise. It is this provision, which is sought to be relied upon to contend that the applicant was within its rights to take over the land for the purpose of public street without payment of any compensation to the plaintiff. However, sub-section (2) of Section 192 of the Municipal act provides for the Committee to give a public notice of such scheme and the procedure prescribed therein has to be followed. The submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff is that all those aspects would also have to be proved and, thus, the attempt of the applicant is only to delay the proceedings. ( 7 ) THERE is force in the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is not as if for a requirement of a public street, the land can straightaway be taken away under Section 192 of the Municipal Act, but the procedure prescribed therein has to be followed. If the stand of the applicant was that the land was so taken away and the procedure was so followed, then the necessary pleadings in that behalf had to be made and evidence led. It can hardly be said that despite due diligence, the applicant was not in a position to take such a plea in the written statement. ( 8 ) THERE is also another aspect to the matter, which, in my considered view, makes the whole exercise of seeking the amendment futile. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 192 of the Municipal Act requires that the total quantum of the land to be transferred should not exceed 20% and in case it is transferred without payment, it should not exceed 10%. The total land owned by the plaintiff is 2. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 192 of the Municipal Act requires that the total quantum of the land to be transferred should not exceed 20% and in case it is transferred without payment, it should not exceed 10%. The total land owned by the plaintiff is 2. 18 acres and what has been taken possession of is 0. 836 acre. There is no dispute over these figures. The percentage of land, thus, taken over is 38. 3%. Thus, ex facie, the provision would have no application in view of the maximum percentage prescribed for the application of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 192 of the Municipal act as in the present case it undisputedly exceeds that percentage. ( 9 ) NO doubt, while considering an application for amendment, the merits of the controversy are not to be gone into in depth, but where an amendment sought for is a futile-exercise and that too after 26 years, the Court cannot be a silent spectator to the attempts on the part of the applicant to further delay a decision in the suit. ( 10 ) THE application is misconceived and without any merit and is, thus, dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/ -. IA No. 7982/2004 (Order XII. R-6 CPC by the Plaintiff) ( 11 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for possession in respect of the land taken possession of by defendant No. 3 / NDMC by construction of the road joining Tolstoy Marg from Janpath to Parliament Street, New Delhi. An alternative relief has also been claimed that the defendants be directed to issue the requisite notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, the Land acquisition Act ) and compensation be granted to the plaintiff at the prevalent rate. As a further alternative, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for Rs. 2. 42 crores with interest from 25. 03. 1976 to 14. 03. 1979 calculated @ 24% p. a. apart from pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount. ( 12 ) THE plaintiff is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It is stated to be a charitable educational body run totally on philanthropic principles for promotion of education. ( 12 ) THE plaintiff is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It is stated to be a charitable educational body run totally on philanthropic principles for promotion of education. The plaintiff Trust is stated to have been founded in the year 1924 when Sardar bahadur Dharam Singh donated the land out of his personal properties to the Trust with the specific stipulation that income from the properties should be utilised for the promotion of educational activities of the plaintiff Trust. The plaintiff Trust is stated to be supporting a large number of schools in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. In Delhi, the plaintiff Trust is stated to be running Sardarni Sada Kaur khalsa Girls Higher Secondary School, Darya ganj, New Delhi where almost 1000 girl- students are stated to be studying and the admission is based on a criterion without any distinction of caste or creed. ( 13 ) IN order to augment the income of the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased the building with the land underneath known as plot No. 1, Block No. 124 subsequently known as plot no. 9, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi from one Sardar Ram Singh Kabli on 15. 08. 1932 as per the Sale Deed which was duly registered on 17. 08. 1932. The property was mutated in the name of the plaintiff in terms of the letter of the Landdo, New Delhi dated 11. 04. 1933. The plaintiff continued to be the owner of the said plot. The plaintiff apparently wanted to sell the plot to augment the financial resources of the plaintiff in and around 1975. At the time when negotiations were pending, emergency was declared by the Government of India on 25. 06. 1975. ( 14 ) IT is stated in the plaint that on or about 15/16. 03. 1976 on account of high-handedness on the part of the defendants, the plot in question was bulldozed without issuing any notice or warning to the plaintiff and a sizable portion of the property including the quarters built on the plot were demolished by the defendants. The chowkidar residing in the quarters was not even allowed to inform the owner and it was only on information of some passer-by that the plaintiff came to know about the illegal demolition. The chowkidar residing in the quarters was not even allowed to inform the owner and it was only on information of some passer-by that the plaintiff came to know about the illegal demolition. The trustees of the plaintiff Trust reached the spot but the defendants started constructing a wall to act as a boundary to separate the area illegally taken over by the defendants for construction of the road for extension of Tolstoy Marg from Janpath to Parliament Street, New Delhi. ( 15 ) THE Trustees of the plaintiff Trust on enquiry at the spot were informed that the chief Engineer of defendant No. 3 / NDMC had given instructions to construct the road by bulldozing the portion of the building and the walls existing and despite the request of the trustees that in case the land was required for public purpose, the same should be acquired through due process of law, no heed was paid to the request of the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is stated in the plaint that the President of defendant No. 3 and the Chief Engineer, NDMC rushed to the site and threatened the trustees of the plaintiff trust with dire consequences if they interrupted the construction of the work of link Road including the threat of detention under MISA. ( 16 ) THE first written information, the plaintiff is stated to have received, was by the letter dated 15. 04. 1976 informing that the extension of road had to take place and by that time, the entire work is stated to have finished. The letter made the reference to the work of extension and the fact that a compound wall had been constructed to demarcate the right of way of the road as discussed at the meeting held with you in this connection. This was so stated despite the fact that no meeting had been held. The letter further recorded, Land and development Officer, Ministry of Works and housing is being requested to arrange the payment of compensation, etc. ( 17 ) THE result of the aforesaid was that the plaintiff was deprived illegally and forcibly of the land area, which is undisputedly accepted by both the counsel for the parties as per the record to be 0. 836 acre out of the total plot size of 2. 18 acres. ( 17 ) THE result of the aforesaid was that the plaintiff was deprived illegally and forcibly of the land area, which is undisputedly accepted by both the counsel for the parties as per the record to be 0. 836 acre out of the total plot size of 2. 18 acres. The plaintiff was aggrieved by the deprivation of the "right to Property" under the Constitution of India ( hereinafter to be referred to as, "the Constitution") and the plaint states that even if the land was required for a public purpose, the dispossession could have taken place only under authority of law. The plaintiff has, thus, sought restoration of the possession. ( 18 ) THE plaintiff made a representation to defendant No. 3 / NDMC and also to the lieutenant Governor of Delhi without any result. In view of the representations of the plaintiff, a letter dated 03. 01. 1977 was issued by defendant No. 2 / Land and Development officer to defendant No. 3 / NDMC to the following effect:"to, the Municipal Engineer (Randd), n. D. M. C. , new Delhi. Sub:- Extension of Tolstoy Marg from Janpath to Parliament Street. Sir, i am to refer to this office letter of even number dated 3. 9. 1976, on the above subject, and to request you to furnish a copy of Plan showing the exact area taken over by N. D. M. C. for road widening from the lessees of 9, jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi, without further delay. It may please be noticed that the n. D. M. C. has taken over the land from the lessees without any authority from this office and if you failed to furnish the required information, the lessees will be informed to take direct action for unauthorised occupation of this land by N. D. M. C. " (emphasis supplied) ( 19 ) THE letter issued by defendant No. 2 also did not evoke any response from defendant no. 3 / NDMC and the plaintiff was, thus, left with no option but to file the suit for possession. It may be noticed that the suit originally as framed had sought the alternative relief for recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,92,000/- but the plaint was subsequently amended in april, 1996 increasing the amount of the alternative relief. Since then another ten (10) years have passed. It may be noticed that the suit originally as framed had sought the alternative relief for recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,92,000/- but the plaint was subsequently amended in april, 1996 increasing the amount of the alternative relief. Since then another ten (10) years have passed. ( 20 ) THE suit has been resisted by defendant no. 3 / NDMC and in order to consider the present application, some of the pleadings made in the written statement have to be reproduced: "preliminary OBJECTIONS :7. That the land in question was acquired by Land and Development Officer on the approval of Town and Planning organisation and was placed at the disposal of the N. D. M. C. for implementation of the road widening scheme. The plaintiff therefore has no locus stand! to claim the relief the compensation from the replying Defendant. 8. That this Hon ble Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed to the plaintiff for the simple reason that the land in question was acquired by the Government and the compensation is to be computed first by the Collector appointed under Land Acquisition Act and thereafter the party can file an appeal with the District Judge under land Acquisition Act. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to compute or award compensation in respect of the land acquired and the jurisdiction of the Civil court is barred under that Act. BRIEF FACTS : the land of various private properties which also included the piece of land measuring about 0. 836 acres from 9, jantar Mantar Road was falling in the proposed extension of Tolstoy Marg from Parliament Street to Janpath as per drawing prepared by Town and planning Organisation as per provisions in the Master Plan on roads of Delhi under Delhi Development Act and approved by D. D. A. The Delhi development Officer acquired the land from the parties concerned and which was done by the Land and Development officer and thereafter the same was placed at the disposal of the Replying defendant (NDMC) for implementation of the Road Widening Scheme by Land and Development Authority and D. D. A. REPLY TO THE PARAS ON MERITS :8. Para 8 of the plaint and each and every one or the averments made therein are wrong and are, therefore, denied. The true facts have already been stated in the foregoing paras. Para 8 of the plaint and each and every one or the averments made therein are wrong and are, therefore, denied. The true facts have already been stated in the foregoing paras. It is, however, not denied that the compound wall separating the area of the premises of plot No. 9, Jantar Mantar road from the proposed widening of the road was constructed by the answering defendant but it is vehemently denied that the land was illegally taken over as alleged. In fact the land was handed over to the answering defendant in consultation with the plaintiffs and now it does not lie in their month to come out with the false allegations as made in the para under reply. The plaintiff has also been notified about taking over of the land and construction of wall vide answering defendants letter, dated 19. 02. 1976. 9. Para 9 as stated is wrong and denied. It is denied that any instructions were issued by Shri V. P. Chetal, Chief Engineer (Civil) as alleged. It is also denied that any of the Trustee ever requested the said Engineer at the site to stop further construction of the road as alleged. It is also denied that any officials of the defendant Committee much less so the president, N. D. M. C. or Chief Engineer of the N. D. M. C. ever threatened the trustees of the plaintiff with dire consequences of threatened them for detention under MISA as alleged. In fact there was neither any occasion nor were they competent to make any such threats as mentioned in the para under reply. This story of threats has been cooked up with ulterior motives. The road widening was a public purpose which was carried out with the full knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. In fact the plaintiff caused interference to the lawful action of the concerned authorities who acquired the land for public purpose, i. e. , widening of the road. As stated earlier no part of the trust property was illegally utilised for the widening of the road. In fact the wall has been built to demarcate the plot of the plaintiff which facility the plaintiffs have got at the cost of the replying defendants. 10. Para 11 is wrong and denied. It is wrong that the replying defendants acquired any land much less so 1. In fact the wall has been built to demarcate the plot of the plaintiff which facility the plaintiffs have got at the cost of the replying defendants. 10. Para 11 is wrong and denied. It is wrong that the replying defendants acquired any land much less so 1. 0 acre of land as wrongly alleged by the plaintiffs in the para. It is wrong that the replying defendant was required to serve any notice to the plaintiff. As stated above the land, if any, which was acquired was acquired by the other government authorities mentioned above and not by the replying defendants. The replying defendants in fact was writing to the authorities to examine the case of the plaintiff and pay reasonable and proper compensation to the plaintiff if the plaintiff is entitled to any from the other authorities. 11. Para 12 as stated is wrong and denied. It is not denied that the Plaintiff has been approaching the defendant committee for payment of compensation but as already stated the committee had always been bringing home to the plaintiff that his land had not been acquired and if there is any land which is acquired their land then they should approach the concerned authorities. The replying defendants were co-operative with the plaintiff only as a public body. The receipt of certain letters from the Landdo or from the plaintiff in this respect as referred to in this para are not denied. As stated earlier, Landdo acquired the land and gave to N. D. M. C. for widening of the road which is a public purpose. Later on when Land and Development authority tried to wriggle out on technical ground the replying defendant then approached Delhi Administration for payment of compensation if any to the plaintiff. 12. Para 14 is wrong and denied. The widening of the road was done by the committee as a public purpose and for the public utility, service and no benefit has been achieved by the defendant committee in its Individual capacity. In fact the utility of the road widening is to the entire public including the plaintiff and the plaintiff as it claims to be a charitable and religious trust should have been satisfied for the utility of their land (if any) for the public purpose which is in consonance to the objective of the trust as mentioned in the para 2 of the plaint. " (emphasis supplied) ( 21 ) A reading of all the aforesaid paragraphs and written statement as a whole leaves no manner of doubt that the stand of defendant no. 3/ndmc is that it had taken over possession of the land for road widening albeit with the consent of the plaintiff and such taking over of possession was in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings by the perpetual Lessor, L and DO. The plaintiff can, thus, be compensated for take over of the land in question. ( 22 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 / Landdo has also filed the written statement and once again some of the paragraphs of the written statement of the Landdo are required to be reproduced: "on MERITS :12, Para 12 of the plaint Is denied, except for the fact that tetter dated 18. 03. 1977 was received from the plaintiffs, It is submitted that the plaintiffs were asked to take up the matter regarding the payment of compensation with the New Delhi municipal Committee as defendants No. 1 and 2 never authorised the New delhi Municipal Committee to take over the land, Defendants No. 1 and 2 had nothing to do with the take over of the land by the N. D. M. C. and the plaintiffs cannot make defendants No. 1 and 2 liable for anything. 14. In reply to para 14 it is submitted that there was no question of involvement of any officers or any other staff of defendants No. 1 and 2 as the land was never taken over by the answering defendants. 16. Para 16 is wrong and denied. No possession of any land has been taken by respondents No. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any amount from defendants No. 1 and 2. In any case the rate of the land as claimed by the plaintiff is absolutely incorrect. The plaintiffs are merely lessees of the land. 18. Para 18 is admitted only to the extent that a notice under Section 80 was received by defendant No. 1. The defendants No. 1 and 2 are not liable to make any payment of any compensation because neither the land was taken over by defendant No. 1 nor the defendants No. 1 and 2 ever authorised New Delhi Municipal committee to take over the land. The validity of the notice is, however, denied. The defendants No. 1 and 2 are not liable to make any payment of any compensation because neither the land was taken over by defendant No. 1 nor the defendants No. 1 and 2 ever authorised New Delhi Municipal committee to take over the land. The validity of the notice is, however, denied. Even otherwise there was no cause for the plaintiffs to serve any notice on defendants No. 1 and 2. " ( 23 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 / Landdo, thus, took a categorical stand that the Landdo had never authorized NDMC / defendant No. 3 to take over the land nor have any acquisition proceedings been ever initiated in respect of the land in question. ( 24 ) THE parties had filed the documents and most of the documents are undisputed. The perpetual lease dated 07. 06. 1921 is Exhibit p-1, while the Sale Deed dated 15. 08. 1932 is exhibit P-8 being the English translation. The letter dated 15. 04. 1976 referred to aforesaid issued by NDMC is Exhibit P-12. The letter dated 03. 01. 1997 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, Landdo reproduced above is Exhibit P-2. ( 25 ) THE plaintiff had taken up the matter with defendant No. 2 / Landdo and a communication date 06. 06. 1978 was issued by defendant no. 2 / Landdo, which is Exhibit P-3 and reads as under:"government of India ministry of Works and Housing land and Development. Office nirman Bhvan, New Delhi no. LII-16 (450)/76 Dated 6. 6. 78 to, the Secretary, guru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust, khalsa School Building, darya Ganj, delhi. Sub:- Payment of compensation in the possession taken for the road out of 9 Jantar Mantar Road, New delhi for extension of Tolstoy Marg. Dear Sir, with reference to your letter No. 51/77 dated 13. 3. 77 on the above subject, you are requested to take up the matter direct with the NDMC regarding payment of compensation for the area taken over by them for the extension of road as this office never authorised ndmc to take over the land. Yours faithfully, sd/- ( A. P. JAIN ) engineer Officer" ( 26 ) DEFENDANT No. 3 / NDMC ultimately admitted that defendant No. 2/l and DO had not handed over the land as per the letter dated 10. 02. Yours faithfully, sd/- ( A. P. JAIN ) engineer Officer" ( 26 ) DEFENDANT No. 3 / NDMC ultimately admitted that defendant No. 2/l and DO had not handed over the land as per the letter dated 10. 02. 1977, which is Exhibit P-14 and reads as under:"new DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE (ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT) vidyut BHAWAN : NEW DELHI no. ME (Randd)/142a/hc Dt. 10. 2. 77/d-588-89 the Engineer Officer, land and Development Officer, m/0 Works and Housing, nirman Bhawan, new Delhi. Sub:- Extension of Tolstoy Marg from janpath to Parliament Street, New Delhi. Sir, please refer to your letter No. L- ii. A. 16 (450)/76 dt. 3. 1. 77 regarding the position of land / plan showing the exact area taken over by NDMC for implementing the above said scheme from 9-Jantar Mantar Road and S. T. C. Building at the junction of Janpath. Please also refer this letter No. 2-A/ 5099 dt. 29. 12. 76 in respect related to STC. The total area of land measuring 0. 836 acres and 0. 012 acres from 9, Jantar mantar Road and STC Building respectively have been acquired as per sketches attached for construction of public road. You are, therefore, requested to kindly make the necessary orders to allot this land to NDMC at the earliest. Yours faithfully, sd/- er. S. C. Basuroy municipal Engineer (R and D) encl. : Two sketches. Copy to :- A. E. IV (Randd) - for information and n. action. " (emphasis supplied) ( 27 ) IT is only in February, 1977 that the assistance of Landdo was sought by NDMC for necessary orders to allot the land in question to NDMC. ( 28 ) THE aforesaid letter was followed up by another letter by NDMC to Delhi administration dated 23. 03. 1979, which is exhibit P-15 and reads as under:"no. ME (Randd)/d/1402 March 23, 1979 shri S. C. Vaish, secretary (LSG), delhi Administration, vikas Bhawan, new Delhi. Sub:- Extension of Tolstoy Marg from janpath to Parliament Street, New Delhi. S. H. :- Payment of compensation for land. Sir, the construction of Tolstoy Marg from janpath to Parliament Street was taken up in February, 1976 on the basis of drawing No. C/a-381 prepared by tandc. P. O. and approved by the D. D. A. In the alignment prepared by Tandc. S. H. :- Payment of compensation for land. Sir, the construction of Tolstoy Marg from janpath to Parliament Street was taken up in February, 1976 on the basis of drawing No. C/a-381 prepared by tandc. P. O. and approved by the D. D. A. In the alignment prepared by Tandc. P. O. certain parts of private properties as mentioned below were coming: ( 51 ) THE result of the aforesaid is that the application would have to be allowed. No doubt, the consequence would be the restoration of the land in question to the plaintiff being used as a road. However, the direction has become necessary as a consequence of the obdurate stand of defendant No. 3 / NDMC to invoke the provisions of law to legally acquire the land. Defendant No. 3 / NDMC has not only taken over the land of the plaintiff without due process of law, but also is not even willing to consider the larger public interest in the given situation to acquire the land. It is with great sense of pain and anguish that this Court has to note this attitude of the public authority like NDMC. The stand of defendant No. 3/ndmc is that : We have committed an illegality; we will perpetuate the illegality; and we will take no action to redeem the position and clothe the action with legality. ( 52 ) BEFORE parting with the matter, it may also be noticed that the plaintiff Trust has been battling the illegality of defendant No. 3 / NDMC for over three (3) decades and the suit itself is 27 years old. A philanthropic organization has been made to run from pillar to post by a public authority like defendant no. 3 / NDMC which has violated all principles and cannons of law. Thus, the conduct of defendant No. 3 / NDMC must be deprecated in the strongest of terms. ( 53 ) THE application is accordingly allowed. ( 54 ) THE application of the plaintiff under Order xii Rule 6 of the Code having been allowed, a decree for possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and more particularly defendant No. 3 / NDMC in respect of 0. ( 53 ) THE application is accordingly allowed. ( 54 ) THE application of the plaintiff under Order xii Rule 6 of the Code having been allowed, a decree for possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and more particularly defendant No. 3 / NDMC in respect of 0. 836 acre of land originally forming part of plot No. 1, Block No. 124 subsequently known as plot No. 9, 3antar Mantar Road, new Delhi, the possession of which was taken over by defendant No. 3/ndmc. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly. .