The SDM cannot determine the title to the property, and the pendency of civil suits cannot be circumvented by directing the SDM to release the property to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Asha Menon, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) for setting aside the order dated 10th November, 2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) CBI-01, Saket Courts, New Delhi in revision petition No. 07/2016 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19th August, 2016 passed by the SDM (Hauz Khas).

2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the present matter are that there is a plot bearing No. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, measuring 499 square yards. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the said property on the basis of an Agreement to Sell dated 24th February, 1986, executed in his favour by late Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana. The said late Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana had also executed a General Power of Attorney, Will, Receipt of payment of Rs. 16 lakhs and an Affidavit to complete the sale in favour of the petitioner on 24th February, 1986. The original documents pertaining to the property were also handed over and continue to remain in the power and possession of the petitioner. The property has also been mutated in the name of the petitioner vide a registered Conveyance Deed executed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short, “DDA”) on 12th August, 2013.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana expired on 5th April, 2011 and the respondent No. 2 arrived from USA on 29th April, 2011 and requested the petitioner to allow him to live in the said property for some time. Since the respondent No. 2 was the brother of late Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana, the petitioner allowed him to use one room. However, unknown to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2, with the active connivance of his sister Smt. Sangeeta Bambani, and with criminal intent, filed an application before the DDA on 2nd July, 2011 seeking mutation of the property in their names. When the petitioner learnt about this, he filed objections before the Deputy Director, DDA, requesting that since he was the bona fide owner of the property, no mutation be allowed in favour of the respondent No. 2. Despite several notices by the DDA to the respondent No. 2 for production of all original documents pertaining to the property, the respondent No. 2 failed to appear before the concerned official of the DDA and produce the relevant documents. Thereafter, he also claimed that he had lost all the original documents of the property. As the petitioner had filed all the original documents before the DDA, the file was sent on 16th August, 2012 for vigilance inquiry.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the DDA for conversion of the property in his name from lease-hold to free-hold on 28th June, 2013 and paid the conversion charges on 12th August, 2013, whereafter, the DDA executed and registered the Conveyance Deed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 returned to USA, without informing the petitioner, and when the petitioner contacted the respondent No. 2, he was informed that not only has the respondent No. 2 filed a suit before the High Court of Delhi, but he also alleged that he had sold the property to a prospective buyer namely, Sh. Murari Mirchandani, respondent No. 3 herein, and he had also received Rs. 70 lakhs as earnest money from him, and advised the petitioner to forget about the property. A complaint to the police did not result in any action against the respondent No. 2 and his sister.

5. It is thus stated that since the request of the respondent No. 2 for mutation of the property was rejected, therefore, the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 11th April, 2012 with the respondent No. 3, for a sum of Rs. 14.25 crores was illegal. The respondent No. 3 also filed a Civil Suit for specific performance against the respondent No. 2 in this court, being CS(OS) 1081/2014, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as defendant No. 5, but no stay was granted against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 had also fil