SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Govind Saran Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2802 of 2020 & CM APPL. 9787 of 2020, 7039 of 2021
Decided On : 18-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kasim Khan & Mr. Aman Mirza, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing counsel DDA along with Mr. Sumit Chander, Mr. Gurdeep Chauhan, Ms. Mahak Dua & Amit Agarwal Advocates and Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Director & Pankaj Bhagat Dy. Director DDA.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak Standing counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advocates Alongwith Mr. Manbinder Singh, Dy. Secretary Alt. L&B Department.
Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi ASC GNCTD with Ms. Kavita Nailwal, Advocates with Inspector Bharat Bhushan.
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC (Counsel for CBI)
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, (CGSC) & Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Advocates with Mr. Surendra Bagde, Additional Secretary, (MOHUA), Mr. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, Under Secretary (MOHUA).

Public authorities must act transparently and accountably, especially when allegations of forgery in land allotments arise, necessitating a CBI investigation.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 - Allegations of forgery in allotment of land - The petitioner sought execution of conveyance deed for a plot allotted under the Saket/South Residential Scheme, but the allotment was found to be based on forged documents. The DDA and L&BD were directed to produce original files and affidavits regarding the allotment process. The court emphasized the need for accountability in public office and directed a CBI investigation into the matter. (Paras 1-47)

(B) Public Trust Doctrine - The court reiterated that public authorities must act fairly and reasonably, as they are stewards of public trust. The failure to address the issue of forged allotments erodes public confidence in governmental institutions. (Paras 31-34)

(C) CBI Investigation - The court ordered the transfer of the investigation to the CBI due to the complexity and gravity of the allegations involving multiple departments and officials. (Paras 40-41)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was allotted a plot in 1979 but faced cancellation due to alleged forgery in the allotment process. The DDA acknowledged the existence of forged recommendation letters, leading to a significant inquiry into the legitimacy of multiple allotments.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allotment was based on forged documents and directed the DDA to retrieve properties allotted under similar circumstances.

Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the petitioner’s allotment, the extent of forgery in the allotment process, and the accountability of public officials involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to relief as the allotment was based on a forged letter, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in public administration.

Result: Petition disposed of; CBI investigation ordered.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

Background

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mr. Govind Saran Sharma seeking directions to the Respondents for the execution of conveyance deed/title documents regarding a plot identified as `No. E-66 in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi' (hereinafter, `subject property'), under the Saket/South Residential Scheme (hereinafter, `the Scheme'), in favour of the Petitioner.

3. The present petition has been filed against Respondent No. 1-the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, `DDA'), and Respondent No. 2- the Land & Building Department (hereinafter, `L&BD'). The petition has brought to light certain alarming details about various properties, allotted by the DDA based on allegedly forged letters from the L&BD. These properties are spread across Delhi and are of significant value, potentially worth crores of rupees.

4. As per the petition, on 22nd September 1979, the Petitioner was allotted an alternative plot measuring 150 square yards as part of the mentioned Scheme. The Petitioner deposited Rs. 2,000/- on 17th October 1979, which was acknowledged by the DDA. Thereafter, as per the petition, the DDA requested the Petitioner to submit an affidavit regarding the allotted plot in a letter dated 21st November 1979. A letter sent on 7th August 1980 informed the Petitioner about the draw of a specific plot number and the dates and times related to it, asking the Petitioner to attend. On 28th August, 1980, the Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 7,626.10/-, which he did, and this was acknowledged by the DDA on 4th October 1980.

5. The Petitioner was thereafter informed about the possession of the subject property vide letter dated 31st October, 1980, asking the Petitioner to be present at the DDA site office on 21st November, 1980, for handing over the possession of the subject property. Upon following up on the letter dated 31st October, 1980, for taking possession of the allotted plot, as per the petition, the Petitioner was asked to pay a bribe by the DDA, which the Petitioner refused. Subsequently, when the Petitioner made contact again, he was informed that his allotment qua the subject property had been cancelled. Subsequently, the Petitioner discovered that the cancellation of the said allotment was made under the name `Govind Ram', which was incorrect, as the Petitioner's actual name was `Govind Saran Sharma', and not Govind Ram, as falsely stated by the officials of the DDA.

6. The petition further states that a letter from Mr. Bansi Dhar, Jt. Secretary (Land & Building Department), dated 17th February 1981, addressed to Mr. K.L. Bhatia, Commissioner of DDA, highlighted inquiries into alleged malpractices involving the recommendation process for allotment of alternative plots. The letter revealed that in 128 cases, files had not even been opened, thus there was no basis for sending recommendation letters for those properties. This suggests that some recommendation letters might have been forged. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Department and the DCP (Anti-Corruption) for a detailed investigation. As a result, the Petitioner's allotment has come under scrutiny by the said authorities.

7. Since 1979, the Petitioner claims that he has persistently sought to address his grievances regarding the allotment of a plot by the DDA and the L&BD. Despite these efforts, according to the Petitioner, the allotment has been acknowledged but unresolved issues persist. Thereafter, despite interventions by various authorities, the resolution of the Petitioner's grievances remained elusive. Correspondence and communication from various DDA departments and government officials through 2008 to 2012 oscillated between acknowledging Petitioner's legitimate claim over the subject property, attempting to correct the name discrepancy (from Govind Ram to Govind Saran Sharma), and assuring action against illegal constructions on the said pl










  • Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top