Seema Thakur vs Union Of India & Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 4367 Del

14.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 1642/2008

                                   Date of decision: 28th October, 2009

       SEEMA THAKUR                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Advocate.

                     versus

       UOI AND ANR                            ..... Respondents
                          Through Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CGSC & Mr.
                          Khalid Arshad, Advocate for UOI.
                          Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

       1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?
       2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?

                                 ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed by Ms. Seema Thakur

through her attorney Mr. Vijay Kapoor challenging the action of Land and

Development Officer, the respondent No. 2 in granting mutation and

executing conveyance deed dated 20th December, 2004 conveying freehold

title in property No. 18/50, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi in favour of Mr.

Gopi Chand, the respondent No. 3.

2. At the outset, it may be noticed that respondent No. 3 disputes and

contests the right of Mr. Vijay Kapoor, who has filed the present writ

W.P. (C) No. 1642/2008 Page 1 petition as the attorney on the ground that the power of attorney dated

25th July, 2007 is forged and fabricated.

3. The leasehold rights in the aforesaid property were earlier granted

to Mr. Hans Raj Vig and on his death inherited by Mr. Pran Nath Vig. The

property was under the tenancy of father-in-law of Ms. Seema Thakur, late

Mr. Bansi Lal Thakur, who was earlier carrying on business in partnership

with his father late Mr. Kansi Ram Thakur. Mr. Pran Nath Vig entered into

agreement to sell and executed some other documents in favour of Ms.

Seema Thakur on 31st May, 2004. It is the case of Ms. Seema Thakur that

she paid Rs.6 lacs to Mr. Pran Nath Vig and had also deposited

Rs.4,65,000/- with the respondent No. 2 towards penalty for unauthorized

construction. It is also her case that she had engaged respondent No. 3, a

property dealer, for his services to get the property mutated in her name

in the records of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner states that

respondent No. 3 in a fraudulent manner got alleged documents executed

from Mr. Pran Nath Vig on 31st May, 2004 after stating that the petitioner

had agreed to sell the property to him.

4. The respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has relied upon

documents allegedly executed by the petitioner herein on 31st May, 2004

in his favour. He has also relied upon the averments made by the

petitioner in the written statement filed by her in the civil suit filed by the

mother-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand,

W.P. (C) No. 1642/2008 Page 2 disputes the averments made in the written statement stating, inter alia,

that some pages of the written statement were changed behind her back

and the petitioner had not made any admission that she had transferred

her right in the property in favour of respondent No. 3.

5. It is admitted position that the petitioner and the third respondent

are involved in proceedings both civil and criminal relating to the property

in question.

6. The aforesaid background has been given to show that there is a

dispute with regard to right and interest of the petitioner and the

respondent No. 3 in respect of the property in question. These rights have

to be adjudicated and decided in the civil suit and not before this Court in

writ proceedings.

7. The petitioner, however, submits that mutation and conversion deed

executed by the respondent No. 2 should be cancelled or at least kept in

abeyance till the question of title or rights in respect of the property are

adjudicated by the civil courts. In this connection, it is submitted that

there was no occasion and cause for the petitioner to execute documents

in favour of the respondent No. 3 on 31st May, 2004, when she herself was

purchasing the property and documents in her favour were executed on

the same date. Learned counsel has relied upon the stand of Mr. Pran

Nath Vig that he had executed documents like agreement to sell, power of

attorney, etc. in favour of the petitioner.

W.P. (C) No. 1642/2008 Page 3

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original

documents of title are with the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 had

preferred an advertisement, which was filed before the respondent No. 2

for loss of original papers.

9. The respondent No. 3 had filed with the respondent No. 2 purported

advertisement published in the newspaper 'The Statesman' published on

3rd July, 2004 under the heading 'loss and found' stating that Mr. Gopi

Chand had lost the original lease deed of the property. The petitioner has

filed before this Court the original newspaper 'The Statesman' published

on 20th December, 2004 to establish that the said advertisement was

published on the said date and not on 3rd July, 2004. It is pointed out that

the respondent No. 3 had used the heading of the newspaper 'The

Statesman' published on 3rd July, 2004 and had pasted the advertisement

published on 20th December, 2004 on a paper and had wrongly claimed

that the advertisement was published on 3rd July, 2004 and no objections

had been received. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 had,

therefore, carried out mutation and transfer of the conveyance deed by

document dated 20th December, 2004 on the basis of the forged and

fabricated papers produced by the respondent No. 3.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 disputes the contention of

the petitioner that the original papers of the property are with the

petitioner. He has also laid considerable emphasis on the fact that the

W.P. (C) No. 1642/2008 Page 4 learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish execution

of power of attorney by Ms. Seema Thakur in favour of Mr. Vijay Kapoor.

It is noticed that Ms. Seema Thakur is presently residing outside India and

execution of power of attorney, etc., is a contentious issue, which will

require evidence. However, learned counsel is unable to meet the

contention as to the manner in which advertisement published on 20 th

December, 2004 was projected as published on 3rd July, 2004 to secure

mutation and conversion deed.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is directed that the

respondent No. 2 will keep the mutation and the conversion deed already

executed under abeyance/suspension and it will be noted in the file that

the property in question is a disputed property. Parties will be at liberty to

get their civil disputes decided in a civil court and thereafter apply to L&DO

for further action. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to file copy of

this order with the Sub-Registrar's office where the title documents

including conveyance deed is registered. The aforesaid observations are

tentative and prima facie and will not influence the civil court while

deciding and adjudicating inter se rights of the parties. Parties will be

entitled to plead all defences including limitation in the civil proceeding.

12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications

are also disposed of. In view of the facts of the case and conduct of the

parties, I am not inclined to deal with and pass any other order on CM No.

W.P. (C) No. 1642/2008 Page 5 9878/2009, an application which cannot be decided without recording oral

evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no

order as to costs.

DASTI.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       OCTOBER 28, 2009
       VKR




W.P. (C) No. 1642/2008                                            Page 6