The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for registered documents to establish possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and the failure to file a suit for specific performance within the limitation period.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The present petition has been filed under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

"a) Allow this writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, orders or directions to the Commissioner Of Police Respondent no.2 to conduct vigilance and fair inquiry under the supervision of a senior officer not less than the rank of ACP against the Respondents no 3 to 6 of P.S. Greater Kailash being in connivance and conspiracy with accused persons and not. conducting fair and legal enquiry on the petitioner's complaints dated18.11.2019,14.01.2020,27.01.20'20 and 27.06.2020 for the past 8 months and threatening, intimidating and harassing the petitioner who' is a senior citizen 68 years old practicing advocate in Delhi High Court and Supreme Court;

b) To direct Respondent No.2 to complete inquiry into the complaints dated 18.11.2019 and 27.01.2020 of the petitioner by the officer not below the rank of ACP.

c) To direct Respondent No.2 to provide protection to the petitioner from the accused persons as well as from the Respondent No.3 to 6"

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into an Agreement to Sell with one Ravinder Kumar Chugh R/o B-43, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 (now deceased) on 05.07.1995 for purchase of one shop bearing No.32 admeasuring 145 sq. ft. on the ground floor of building for thesumofRs.7,20,000/-.

3. It is stated that the possession of the said property was not handed over to him because the family of Ravinder Kumar Chugh (since deceased) had entered into a collaboration agreement with a builder named M/s Rock Contractors Private Limited and that the said Rock Contractors Private Limited did not construct the said premises.

4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 17.10.2003 with the said Ravinder Kumar Chugh for purchase of 200 sq. ft. in B-43, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 from where chemist shop in the name of M/s R K Pharma was being run. The MoU notes that the vacant possession of the property has been handed over to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner gave a complaint on 18.11.2020 to the SHO, Police Station Greater Kailash stating that on 16.11.2019, the Petitioner's associate visited the Petitioner's property at Ground Floor, B-43, Greater Kailash and on reaching there, he saw one Arvinder Singh at the premises. It is stated that after an altercation took place, the police came to the scene of disturbance and asked the Petitioner to show the title documents of the property.

6. It is stated that the Petitioner supplied the title documents to the Police to demonstrate that he had purchased the property from one Ravinder Singh Chugh vide MoU dated 17.10.2003. The petitioner mentioned that the property was sealed following the orders of the monitoring committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the property was de-sealed by the order of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short 'MCD') dated 21.08.2008 and he is in the possession of the said portion.

7. The Petitioner wrote a letter dated 17.01.2020 to the Commissioner of Delhi Police alleging that he was threatened and was spoken to in a derogatory language at the Police Station. It is stated that K.S. Bakshi, M.D. of M/s Rock Contractors Private Limited had been negotiating with the Petitioner since 2008 for the purchase of the 200 sq.ft area owned by the Petitioner at B-43 Greater Kailash, which was in his possession as per the MOU dated 17.10.2003. The Petitioner urged the Commissioner of Police to lodge an FIR against K.L. Bakshi's representatives under Sections 294, 504 and 506 IPC.

8. The petitioner on 27.01.2020 gave another letter in continuation of his earlier complaints dated 18.11.2019 and 17.01.2020 reiterating his earlier complaint. The complainant enclosed the Collaboration Agreement dated