Delhi High Court
Hitesh Bhardwaj vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 21 April, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: April 21, 2009
+ LPA 129/2009 & C.M. No. 4415/2009
HITESH BHARDWAJ ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and
Ms. Simran, Advocates.
AND
LPA 130/2009 & CM No. 4417/2009
DEEPAK RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and
Ms. Simran, Advocates.
AND
LPA 131/2009 & CM No. 4419/2009
DEEPAK BHARDWAJ ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and
Ms. Simran, Advocates.
AND
LPA 132/2009 & CM No. 4421/2009
GALLANT ESTATES & HOTELS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and
Ms. Simran, Advocates.
LPA Nos.129-32/2009 Page 1 of 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
ORDER
21.04.2009
C.M. No. 4415/2009 (for condonation of delay) in LPA 129/2009
C.M. No. 4417/2009 (for condonation of delay) in LPA 130/2009
C.M. No. 4419/2009 (for condonation of delay) in LPA 131/2009
C.M. No. 4421/2009 (for condonation of delay) in LPA 132/2009
1. For the reasons mentioned in these applications, the delay of
18 days in filing the present appeals is condoned.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
LPA Nos. 129-132/2009
3. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 5th December, 2008. This Court has
already dismissed similar appeal (LPA No. 7 of 2009) arising out of
the same impugned judgment raising principally the same challenges
to the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge has rightly
held that by getting for themselves the Divisional Commissioner's
land abutting the main road in exchange for land nowhere near it,
the transferees had reaped a huge advantage. There was little doubt
that the transferees acted in concert to exploit the situation with the
connivance of a pliant Government official and deprived the
Divisional Commissioner (in short 'DC') of valuable land behind his
back. The Consolidation Officer (in short 'CO') was induced to
exercise a power he did not have as a result of which an order that
constitutes a fraud on power came to be passed. The order dated 1 st
December, 1995, passed by the CO, whereby he divested the DC of
his land without notice to the DC in exchange for the land offered by
the allottees was rightly held by the learned Single Judge to be
without any authority of law whatsoever. The nature of illegality was
a grave one. The learned Single Judge has correctly held that none of
the interim orders in favour of the transferee and her family members
could have created any equity in her favour, much less in the
subsequent transferees. The learned Single Judge has rightly
observed that no case for equitable relief was made out by any of the
transferees who took a risk in entering into illegal transactions
concerning the land in question despite the pendency of court
proceedings and rightly declared all transfers of any part of the DC's
land subsequent to and consequent upon the CO's order dated 1st
December, 1995 as illegal and without authority of law.
4. This Court in its order dated 15th January, 2009 in LPA No. 7
of 2009 and LPA No. 10 of 2009 had observed that these transactions
were not a mere co-incidence and indicated a fraud purported to
deprive the DC of valuable lands and caused huge loss to the
Exchequer.
5. During the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that
the appellants in the present appeals belong to the same family as
that of Smt. Ramesh Kumari, principal perpetrator of the fraud. This
was not denied by the counsel for the appellants. Further it is the
admitted position that the appellants had received the DC's land
which the DC had been wrongly deprived of by the CO.
6. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the
appellants that these cases are different from those of other
transferees, however, nothing has been placed before us to
distinguish how these cases are in anyway different from the case of
other transferees. It is of course open to the appellants to take
recourse to any remedy available to them in law. However, these
appeals must fail as no ground for interference with the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge has been made out.
7. In view of what has been stated hereinabove and in view of the
order passed by this Court in LPA No. 7 of 2009 and LPA No. 10 of
2009, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed. It is ordered
accordingly.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J
APRIL 21, 2009
sb
