Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Shri Shaik Ziaul Hakim – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
W.P.(C) 17212 of 2022 & CM 54725 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Forgery - Property Dispute - Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 - [FORGERY] - [Property Dispute] - [Section 30 of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957] - The court found that the Petitioner did not have any title, interest, or claim in the subject property and was not entitled to relief of injunction, as the Respondent had categorically denied executing the Conveyance Deed dated 01.02.2021, which was the fundamental document relied upon by the Petitioner for claiming the title. The court directed the DDA to take steps to prevent further transactions in the subject property and to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Vendees. The court also directed an inquiry into the non-compliance of demolition orders and the role of police officials involved in the property transactions.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought a direction to restrain the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing a property he had purchased, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser. The Respondent alleged that the property had been transacted based on forged documents and had never been allotted to any person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner did not have any title, interest, or claim in the subject property and was not entitled to relief of injunction, as the Respondent had categorically denied executing the Conveyance Deed dated 01.02.2021, which was the fundamental document relied upon by the Petitioner for claiming the title.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the property transaction and the Petitioner's claim as a bona fide purchaser.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner's claim was based on a forged document and directed the DDA to prevent further transactions in the subject property and initiate appropriate proceedings against the Vendees. The court also directed an inquiry into the non-compliance of demolition orders and the role of police officials involved in the property transactions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the DDA to take steps to prevent further transactions in the subject property and to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Vendees. The court also directed an inquiry into the non-compliance of demolition orders and the role of police officials involved in the property transactions.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to the Respondent, Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') to restrain from taking any adverse action of demolition with respect to the property bearing DDA Plot No. B-60, Vivek Vihar, Phase-2, Delhi ('subject property' or 'Plot'), admeasuring 201.17 sq. yards i.e., 168.17 sq. meters.
Arguments of the Petitioner
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has purchased the subject property vide Sale Deed executed on 29.04.2022 for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rs. Two Crores) from five persons namely, (i) Amar Kant Gupta, (ii) Surjeet Kumar, (iii) Rajeshwar, (iv) Shyam Bir Singh and (v) Alka Sihag.
2.1. He states that the Petitioner has availed a housing loan from HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. To make payment of the aforesaid sale consideration to the Vendees and the Petitioner is paying monthly installments of Rs. 1,89,349/-to the said bank towards repayment of the said loan.
2.2. He clarifies that Mr. Amar Kant Gupta acquired 50% share in the property from Mr. Saurav Singh Raghav by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 25.10.2021. He states that the remaining four Vendees and Mr. Saurav Singh Raghav jointly acquired their title to the subject property by virtue of Sale Deed dated 31.07.2021.
2.3. He relies upon the Sale Deed dated 31.07.2021 executed in favour of (i) Mr. Saurav Singh Raghav, (ii) Surjeet Kumar, (iii) Rajeshwar, (iv) Shyam Bir Singh and (v) Alka Sihag ('Vendees') by one Mr. Mohan Kumar ('original Vendor") on the basis of a Conveyance Deed executed by DDA on 01.02.2021.
2.4. He states that the subject property is constructed as a three storey building, wherein the Petitioner resides on the upper ground floor with his family and the tenants are residing on the first and third floors.
2.5. He states that the Petitioner observed on 14.12.2022 that an individual was clicking photographs of the building and on enquiry, the said individual clarified that he is an employee of the Respondent, DDA and there is an order issued for demolition of the subject property for 19.12.2022. He states that the Petitioner has not been served with any show cause notice of demolition by the Respondent, DDA and he has no knowledge regarding the reasons for the said proposed action.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjay Katyal, learned standing counsel for the Respondent, DDA accepts notice. Arguments of the Respondent
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent, DDA has placed on record a short affidavit dated 17.12.2022.
4.1. He states that the Petitioner's claim is fraudulent and the subject property has been transacted by the Petitioner, the Vendees (including Saurav Singh Raghav) and the original Vendor on the basis of forged documents.
4.2. He states that the purported Conveyance Deed dated 01.02.2021 referred in the Petitioner's Sale Deed dated 29.04.2022 is a forged document. He states that DDA has not executed any Conveyance Deed in favour of the original Vendor. He states that in fact, the subject property has never been allotted to any person till date. He states that DDA has never executed either a lease deed or a Conveyance Deed pertaining to the subject property and the same belongs to the Respondent, DDA alone.
4.3. He states that the signature of the Lease Administrative Officer ('LAO') on the Conveyance Deed dated 01.02.2021 is forged and even the file number mentioned on the said Conveyance Deed is fictitious and not found as per the records of DDA.
4.4. He states that DDA being the absolute owner of the Plot has auctioned the said Plot on 15.11.2022 for a highest bid of Rs. 7,55,23,632.
4.5. He states that the Petitioner has disclosed a purchase price of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-in his Sale Deed dated 29.04.2022. He states that the subject property has been undervalued and multiple sale deeds have been executed only with the intention to create third party rights to fraudulently def
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner did not have any title, interest, or claim in the subject property and was not entitled to relief of injunction, as the Respond....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the BDA to act fairly and reasonably in its decisions, especially in matters involving property rights, and to ensure complianc....
Subsisting leasehold rights in land and ownership of superstructure preclude deemed conveyance to tenants' society under MOFA without extinguishment proof, valid Section 4 agreements and proper docum....
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
The failure of the DDA to process the property conversion request due to unsubstantiated claims of fraud and lack of documentation violates the respondent's rights.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession of the property to obtain relief, and mere claims of ownership by a defendant do not suffice to cloud the title of the plai....
In a suit for permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish possession; mere claims of ownership without evidence do not suffice to challenge established rights.
The competent authority under MOFA must properly examine the legality and validity of the deed of conveyance and consider the applicant's eligibility and the promoter's compliance with the obligation....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
