Madan Lal Arora vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 2116 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                REVIEW PETITIONS 205, 209/2007
                IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3361 of 2007 & CM
                Nos. 8175/07, 8081/07, 8082/07, 13297/07

                                          Reserved on: November 14, 2008
                                          Date of decision: November 28, 2008

        MADAN LAL ARORA                               ..... PETITIONER
                                 Through Mr. Rajendra Dutt, Advocate

                                 versus

        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.            .....RESPONDENTS
                           Through Ms. Manpreet Kaur for Mr. V.K.
                           Tandon, Advocate for R-1 to 4.
                           Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for R-5.
                           Mr. S.C. Dhanda, Advocate for R-6.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR


         1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
             to see the judgment?                           No

         2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?            Yes

         3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes


                           JUDGMENT

28.11.2008

Review Petition Nos. 205/2007 & 209/2007

1. These two petitions seek review of an order passed by this Court on

23rd May 2007 disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3361 of 2007 and CM

Application No. 6312 of 2007. The Review Petitioners are Respondent

No.5 Tej Pratap Singh and Respondent No.6 Vinay Jain.

2. The Petitioner Madan Lal Arora filed the aforementioned writ

petition stating that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. Tehsildar, Seema Puri,

the Sub-Divisional Magistrate („SDM‟) Seema Puri, and Area Patwari of

Village Mandoli respectively were not acting in accordance with the

provisions of Delhi Land Revenue Act and Rules framed thereunder in

making entries in the Khasra register regarding crops cultivated in land

comprised in Khasras No. 18/2, 18/3, 18/8, 18/14/1, 18/5/1, 10/24/2, 10/25

and 10/16 situated in Village Mandoli, Delhi. It was asserted that the

petitioner had been cultivating the said land. It was further asserted by the

Petitioner that although he had been cultivating the aforesaid land and

sowing and harvesting the crops for long, since 1981-82 his cultivatory

possession and the crops sown by him were not being recorded.

3. On the basis of the above averments the following prayers were made

in the writ petition:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents No. 2 to 4 for making entries in the Khasra register in respect of the harvesting of the crops of the petitioner in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 18/2, 18/3, 18/8, 18/14/1, 18/5/1, 10/24/2, 10/25 and 10/16 situated within the Revenue Estate of Village Mandoli, Delhi as per spot in accordance with the provision of Delhi Land Revenue Rules."

4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court learned counsel for the

Respondents 2 to 4 appeared at the hearing on 23rd May 2007 and informed

the Court that if a time bound direction were issued by this Court "the

necessary exercise will be carried out within that time-frame."

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of on 23rd May 2007 by the

following order:

"1. The only prayer in this writ petition is that the respondents 2 to 4 should act in accordance with the provision of the Delhi Land Revenue Act and the Rules thereunder and make entries in the Khasra register with regard to the crops standing on land bearing Khasra Nos. 18/2, 18/3, 18/8, 18/14/1, 18/5/1, 10/24/2, 10/25 and 10/16 situated within in the revenue estate of Village Mandoli, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 states on instructions from the officer of the SDM Office present in Court that if any, a time-bound direction is issued by this Court, the necessary exercise will be carried out within that time- frame.

3. Accordingly, it is directed that within a period of four weeks from today, the respondents 2 to 4 will make field visit and record the necessary entries in Khasra register in accordance with law in respect of persons who are found in the cultivator possession of the lands in question. No further directions are called for.

4. The writ petition and the pending application stand disposed of.

5. Order be given Dasti to learned counsel for the parties."

5. On 29th May 2007 VInay Jain, Respondent No.5 in the writ petition

filed a Review Petition No. 209 of 2007 stating that the Petitioner Madan

Lal Arora has suppressed the fact that "the land bearing Khasra No. 18/2 (4-

16) and 18/8 (4-16) situated in Village Mandoli was purchased by Dalmia

Latex Limited and Shri Vinay Jain is its Director." A copy of the sale deed

dated 11th December 2006 by which the applicant had purchased the

aforementioned lands in Village Mandoli was enclosed with the review

petition. It was further stated in the review petition that the applicant

Dalmia Latex Limited had filed Suit No. 208 of 2007 against Madan Lal

Arora for a permanent injunction. After notice was issued in the application

seeking interim injunction, an order was passed by the Civil Judge on 21 st

April 2007 restraining Madan Lal Arora from dispossessing the applicant

Dalmia Latex Limited from the land bearing Khasra No. 18/2 (4-16) and

18/8 (4-16) situated in the revenue estate of Village Mandoli, Delhi. It was

further pointed out in Review Petition No. 209 of 2007 that Madan Lal

Arora had himself, as Special Power of Attorney of his wife nad other

family members, filed a suit titled Smt. Krishna Arora & Ors. v. Tej Pratap

Singh seeking permanent injunction in respect of Khasra Nos. 18/2, 18/3,

18/8, 14/1, 18/5/1, 10/24/2, 10/25 and 10/16 in Village Mandoli, Delhi.

Dalmia Latex Limited was impleaded as Defendant No.2 in the said suit.

Although an application for interim injunction was filed in the said suit no

orders granting an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff Krishna

Arora and others was passed. The aforementioned suit by Madan Lal Arora

appears to have been filed on 16th April 2007.

6. Tej Pratap Singh Respondent No.6 in W.P.(C) No. 3361 of 2007 filed

Review Application No. 205 of 2007 on 28th May 2007 in which he

disclosed that he is the recorded bhumidar in actual, physical cultivatory

possession of Khasra No. 18/3 (4-16), 18/14/1 (1-17). He stated that as

regards Khasra No. 18/2 and 18/8 they were transferred to Respondent No.6

Dalmia Latex Limited by a registered sale deed dated 11th December 2006.

Since Madan Lal Arora was seeking to interfere with the possession of Tej

Pratap Singh, the latter filed Suit No. 212 of 2007 titled Tej Pratap Singh v.

Madan Lal Arora seeking a permanent injunction. In the application filed

in the said suit an interim injunction was granted by the Civil Judge, Delhi

on 21st April 2007 in favour of Tej Pratap Singh restraining Madan Lal

Arora from interfering with the possession of the land in the

aforementioned Khasra Nos. 18/3 and 18/14/1 in Village Mandoli.

7. From the aforementioned narration in both the review petitions, it

appears that in respect of the lands mentioned in the writ petition, three

suits were in fact filed in the civil court and were pending on the date of

filing of the writ petition i.e. 2nd May 2007. In fact by that date interim

orders in favour of the Respondents 5 and 6 in their respective suits had

been passed by the Civil Court restraining the Petitioner Madan Lal Arora

from interfering with the possession of these respondents of their respective

lands i.e. Khasra Nos. 18/3 and 18/14/1 (Tej Pratap Singh) and 18/8 and

18/2 (Dalmia Latex Limited). By the said order dated 21st April 2007 the

Civil Judge also dismissed an application filed by Madan Lal Arora for the

appointment of a Local Commissioner. As regards the prayer for interim

injunction, the relevant portion of the order dated 21 st April 2007 passed in

the suit of Dalmia Latex Limited reads as under:

"At this stage counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff apprehends his illegal dispossession

at the hands of the defendant No.1.

In this regard it is stated by the counsel for the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. The defendant no.1 in order to substantiate his defence has relied upon the photocopy of the complaint and FIR lodged by the Gaon Sabha Mandoli against the defendant No.1

I have gone through the aforesaid documents. In this regard it be seen that the aforesaid documents nowhere goes to show that the defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit property. What maximum can be inferred from these documents is that the defendant No.1 had tried to encroach upon the suit property.

Per contra the plaintiff in order to prove his ownership and possession has placed on record a photocopy of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant No.2 wherein vide para 3 the actual and physical possession of the suit property has been handed over to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has also placed on record a photocopy of the khasra girdawari for the year 2006-07 wherein the defendant No.2 (from whom the plaintiff claim its title) has been shown in possession of the suit property. Today the plaintiff has also placed on record certain photographs showing that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. In view of the aforesaid the defendants are hereby restrained

from dispossessing the plaintiff form the suit property bearing Khasra No. 18/8 (measuring 4-

16) Khasra No. 18/2 (measuring 4-16) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mandoli, Shahdara as shown with the red colour in the suit plain till the next date of hearing."

8. A similar order was passed by the Civil Judge on the same date i.e.

21st April 2007 in favour of Tej Pratap Singh in the suit filed by him. Form

the proceedings of that date it appears that in both suits the defendant

Madan Lal Arora was served and was represented by the counsel.

9. In his reply filed to the review petition, Madan Lal Arora has not

denied the pendency of the civil suits or the passing of the aforementioned

interim orders by the Civil Judge. However, no explanation has been

offered for not mentioning those facts in the writ petition. That there can be

absolutely no manner of doubt that the Petitioner has not come with clean

hands and has deliberately suppressed relevant and material facts before

this Court. This conduct of the Petitioner, who has suffered adverse orders

in the Civil Court on 21st April 2007, and has filed the writ petition on 2nd

May 2007 in respect of the very land which forms subject matter of the

suits, is most reprehensible. This is a blatant attempt to overreach the civil

court and to mislead this Court into passing of an order directing survey of

the properties by the revenue authorities to record the names of those

cultivating the land. Had this Court been informed of the subsistence of the

interim orders passed by the Civil Court, no such order as passed on 23rd

May 2007 could have been passed in respect of the khasra nos. covered by

the said interim orders of the civil court.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Rajinder Dutt submitted that

the order passed in the writ petition should be maintained in respect of the

other Khasra Nos. leaving out the four Khasra Nos. in respect of which the

interim injunctions subsisted.

11. Considering the fact that the Petitioner has willingly suppressed

material facts before this Court, it is not possible to grant any relief to him.

Moreover, the suit filed by the Petitioner in respect of the remaining Khasra

Nos. is already pending in the Civil Court. This Court, therefore, is not

inclined to entertain this plea.

12. A grievance was made by learned counsel for the Petitioner that

despite the order dated 30th May 2007, which kept the order dated 23rd May

2007 in abeyance, the Respondents No. 5 and 6 had destroyed the crops on

the land. Aggreived by the said conduct, the Petitioner has filed CM

Application No. 13297 of 2007 under Section 340 Cr.PC.

13. It must be noted that no status quo order was passed by this Court on

30th May 2007 much less on 23rd May 2007. It cannot, therefore, be said

that any order passed by this Court was violated by the Respondents. In

any event if the Petitioner has grievance about the Respondents 5 and 6

taking forcible possession, it is always open to the Petitioner to seek

appropriate remedies. The application under Section 340 Cr.PC is in the

circumstances clearly misconceived.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the Review Petitions Nos. 205 of

2007 and 209 of 2007 are hereby allowed. The order dated 23 rd May 2007

passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3361 of 2007 is hereby recalled. The

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3361 of 2007 and CM Application No. 6312 of

2007 are restored to file and for the aforementioned reasons dismissed on

merits. CM Application No. 13297 of 2007 is dismissed on merits. CM

Applications No. 8175/2007, 8081/2007, 8082/2007 stand disposed of.

15. The Petitioner will pay to the Respondents 2 to 4, 5 and 6 costs of

Rs.10,000/- each within a period of four weeks from today.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

NOVEMBER 28, 2008 rk