Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
Delhi Development Authority - Petitioner
versus
Mohd.Razaq & Ors - Respondents
CM(M) 130/2015
Decided on : 19-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate
Mr.H.L.Narula, Advocate
The court established that the DDA cannot go behind a decree and set up a new case, and that the court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of The Constitution of India is to advance justice and not to thwart it.
Headnote:
DDA - Allotment of Plot - RCANo.12/2009 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the relief granted to the decree holder under RCANo.12/2009, the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010, and the interpretation of the decree by the Executing Court and the Appellate Court. The key legal provisions discussed include the decree of declaration, mandatory injunction, and perpetual injunction, and the court's interpretation of the directions given in the judgment and decree.
Fact of the Case:
The DDA filed a petition challenging the order passed by the Executing Court and the Appellate Court, which directed the DDA to withdraw the demand of Rs. 33,40,220/- and restore the possession to the decree holder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DDA's demand for Rs. 33,40,220/- from the decree holder was illegal and contrary to the decree passed in RCANo.12/2009. The court also noted that the DDA cannot go behind the decree and set up a new case, and that the Executing Court and the Appellate Court did not commit any error in directing the DDA to withdraw the demand.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the decree, the legality of the DDA's demand, and the court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of The Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DDA's demand for Rs. 33,40,220/- was illegal and contrary to the decree, and that the Executing Court and the Appellate Court did not commit any error in directing the DDA to withdraw the demand.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the DDA was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner/DDA has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 4th June, 2013 passed by learned Executing Court in Ex.No.05/2011 as well as the order dated 7th July, 2014 passed by learned Appellate Court in MCA No.27/2013 upholding the order dated 4th June, 2013 passed by the learned Executing Court.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that DDA has complied with the decree dated 22nd February, 2010 passed in RCA No.12/2009 allotting a plot to the decree holder but with direction to pay Rs. 33,40,220/-. The decree holder was never allotted any alternative plot hence allotment cannot be without payment nor there could be any question of restoration of possession without there being any allotment made in favour of the decree holder at any stage. Hence, the direction given by the learned Executing Court vide impugned order to withdraw the demand of Rs. 33,40,220/- and restore the possession to the decree holder, which has been maintained by the learned Appellate Court in MCA No.27/2013 being illegal and perverse, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
3. On behalf of the respondent/decree holder, Mr.H.L.Narula, Advocate has submitted that present petition is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. He has submitted that the decree passed in RCA No.12/2009 has attained finality. Further during pendency of the execution petition DDA has been repeatedly seeking time for compliance of the decree but while issuing allotment letter raised a demand of Rs. 33,40,220/- without any basis in gross contempt of the orders passed by the Court hence the petition may be dismissed.
4. With a view to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to extract the relief granted to the decree holder vide decree passed in RCANo.12/2009 by the learned ADJ on 11.02.2010 :-
“By way of decree of declaration allotment of plot No.D-1/130, Rewari Line Industiral Area Phase-II, Mayapuri, New Delhi in the name of defendant No.2 is declared to illegal, void and without jurisdiction and the plaintiff is held entitled to Delhi allotment of alternative site/plot as against stall/shop no.23, Motor Market, Kabari Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi.
By way of decree of mandatory injunction and possession, defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 (now represented by his legal representatives-respondents no.3 to 23 (except who have left this world) are directed to restore allotment of alternative plot in the name of the plaintiff- now represented by his legal representatives or to allot any other plot in lieu of the plot surrendered by the plaintiff and also deliver possession thereof.
By way of decree of perpetual injunction, defendant-respondent No.1 is restrained from executing any conveyance deed in favour of defendant No.2 or his legal representatives, in respect of plot No.1/130, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Mayapuri, New Delhi.”
5. The above decree was challenged by Mohd. Adbul Qayum,JD No.2 (since deceased) by filing appeal bearing RSA No.124/2010 before High Court of Delhi which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 9th February, 2011.
6. SLP No.16762/2011 preferred against the order of this Court passed in RSA No.124/2010 has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5th December, 2011.
7. Admittedly DDA has never challenged the judgment and decree dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by learned ADJ and the decree has attained finality.
8. To comply with the directions contained in the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010, DDA sent allotment letter dated 30th April, 2013 to the following effect:-
“No.F.21(215)75/LSB(I)/676 Dated : 30.4.13
To,
Mohd. Razak & Other legal heirs
Of late Mohd. Ishaq
R/o 750 Motor Market, Jama Masjid, Delhi
Sub : Allotment of plot No.D-1/130, Rewari Line Industrial area, Ph-11, Delhi
Sir,
In compliance with the orders dated 22.2.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (West), Delhi, it is to inform you that the Competent Authori
