Delhi High Court
Vipin Kumar & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 July, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15th July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2123/2008
ANSHUL ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur & Mr. Dhiraj
Sachdeva, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Ms.
Sugandha, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. Nirbhay Sharma for Ms. Anjum
Javed, Adv. for R-2.
AND
W.P.(C) 2124/2008
VIPIN KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur & Mr. Dhiraj
Sachdeva, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Ms.
Sugandha, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. Nirbhay Sharma for Ms. Anjum
Javed, Adv. for R-2.
W.P.(C)2123&2124/2008 Page 1 of 6
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Not necessary.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary.
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner/s in the two petitions are the auction purchaser/s of
Plot No.4&5, Green Park, New Delhi ad measuring 286.390 sq. mtrs. and
280.090 sq. mtrs. respectively and have paid the entire bid amount of `4.57
crores and `4,70,70,000/- respectively to the respondent no.3 DDA
therefor and respondent no.3 DDA has executed Conveyance Deeds dated
30th November, 2007 in their favour and put him/them into possession of
the respective plots. The present petitions were filed when the respondent
no.2 Delhi Police prevented the petitioner/s from raising construction on
the plots inspite of petitioner/s obtaining all permissions therefor.
2. This Court while issuing notice of the petitions, vide order dated 17th
March, 2008 restrained the respondents from interfering in the possession
of the petitioner/s of their respective plots and in the construction being
raised by the petitioner/s.
3. The respondent no.3 DDA has filed a counter affidavit confirming
the auction and sale of the plots to the petitioner/s and denying that it was
causing any impediment in the petitioner/s raising construction.
4. The respondent no.2 Delhi Police has filed a counter affidavit stating
that the respondent no.3 DDA had in 1972 allotted a plot of land ad
measuring 500 sq. yds. for a Police Post in Safdarjung Community Centre,
Blocks A&B on provisional payment of `52,000/- paid in full by the
respondent no.2 Delhi Police to the respondent no.3 DDA in 1977;
however respondent no.3 DDA failed to hand over possession of the plot to
respondent no.2 Delhi Police on the ground that the said land had been
utilized by the respondent no.3 DDA for its own purpose; that the
respondent no.3 DDA then in the year 1977 allotted alternative site ad
measuring 1011.681 sq. mtr. near Block No.B-7 for construction of a
Police Post and also handed over possession of the same to the respondent
no.2 Delhi Police and the balance amount due for the said land was also
paid by the respondent no.2 Delhi Police to the respondent no.3 DDA in
the year 1978; however the land so allotted was found to be encroached by
jhuggies; that in the year 2002, respondent no.2 Delhi Police cleared the
encroachments from the said plot ad measuring 1011.68 sq. mtr. and
fenced the same; that while the building plans on the said plot were under
preparation, it was reported that the respondent no.3 DDA had re-sold the
said plot also through auctions; that subsequently it was revealed that
respondent no.3 DDA had carved out several plots of about 250 sq. mtr.
each out of aforesaid 1011.681 sq. mtr. of land and the plots subject matter
of the present petitions are two of such plots. The respondent no.2 Delhi
Police thus sought to justify its actions of stopping the petitioner/s from
raising constructions, claiming such rights over the land.
5. These petitions were adjourned from time to time giving directions
for respondent no.2 Delhi Police and respondent no.3 DDA to resolve their
inter se disputes. I am today informed that the said disputes remain
unresolved. The counsel for the petitioner/s states that under protection of
the interim orders in these petitions, the construction on both plots has
since been completed.
6. There were admittedly no documents of title or of delivery of
possession of the land of which the two plots subject matter of these
petitions form part, from respondent no.3 DDA in favour of respondent
no.2 Delhi Police. The respondent no.3 DDA was admittedly entitled to the
land and has now conveyed the same to the petitioner/s herein. The
respondent no.2 Delhi Police is thus not found entitled to interfere in any
manner with the rights created by the respondent no.3 DDA in favour of
the petitioner/s. The only claim which the respondent no.2 Delhi Police can
have is as of a prior allottee as claimed and which rights have not been
enforced as yet.
7. I am of the view that there is no need to keep these petitions
pending. The same are disposed of by allowing the same and by restraining
the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner/s of
the said plots and in the petitioner/s dealing with the same and with liberty
to the respondent no.2 Delhi Police to take appropriate steps to enforce its
claims if any against the respondent no.3 DDA.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
JULY 15, 2011
Pp (corrected and released on 30th July, 2011).
