Ram Vilas vs Vice Chairman,Dda And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 788 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                       Decided on: 06.02.2012

+ W.P.(C) 2009/2011, W.P.(C) 2010/2011, W.P.(C) 2011/2011,
         W.P.(C) 2012/2011 and W.P.(C) 2013/2011


RAM VILAS                                                     ..... Petitioner
LOKESH                                                        ..... Petitioner
SATVEER SINGH                                                 ..... Petitioner
BHIM SINGH                                                    ..... Petitioner
RAJEEV PARKHI                                                 ..... Petitioner
                         Through :      Mr. Viraj R. Datar with Mr. Chetan
                                        Lokur, Advs.
                   versus

VICE CHAIRMAN,DDA AND ORS                                    ..... Respondents
                   Through :            Mr. M. Tripathy Pandy and
                                        Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs.for R-1 to
                                        R-3/DDA.
                                        Mr. N. Waziri, Standing Counsel (Civil)
                                        with Mr. Shoaib Haider, Adv. for Govt.
                                        of NCT of Delhi/EOW along with
                                        Mr. Vinod Gandhi, Inspector, EOW.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petitions have been filed by five petitioners

seeking identical relief, i.e., for quashing of a common communication

dated 11.12.2009 addressed by respondents No.1 to 3/DDA informing

them that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch, Delhi

Police, vide letter dated 29.10.2009 in FIR No.2/2009 dated 9.1.2009,

had informed the DDA that the allotment of the flats under the DDA

Housing Scheme 2008 be withheld till the final outcome of the

investigation by the EOW.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that all the five

petitioners had applied for allotment of flats under the DDA Housing

Scheme 2008 in the Scheduled Castes category and were declared

successful. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3/DDA had called upon the

petitioners to submit their original documents for verification, which was

duly complied with by them. However, in view of the aforesaid impugned

communication, DDA has refused to handover the possession of the said

flats to the petitioners. Initially, the petitioners had made various

representations to respondents No.1 to 3/DDA to enquire about the status

of the investigation. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 3.3.2011 was issued

on behalf of the petitioners to the DDA for handing over of the possession

of the allotted flats under the DDA Housing Scheme 2008, but as no

action was taken by respondents No.1 to 3/DDA in that regard, the

present petitions were filed.

3. Notice was issued on the present petitions on 25.3.2011. On

the said date, learned counsel for the petitioners had stated that the

petitioners have been examined by the police during the course of

investigation and have not been named as accused either in column 1 or

in column 2 of the chargesheets which have been file after completion of

the investigation. Instead, they have been arrayed as witnesses in the

chargesheets.

4. A status report has been filed by respondent No.4/EOW on

3.2.2012, wherein it is stated that in the course of investigation relating

to the proxy applicants applying under the Housing Scheme 2008

introduced by the DDA, a retired employee of DDA along with his

associate and other accused persons were arrested for filling up

application forms on behalf of the unintending poor people of reserved

categories, by giving them inducement, and creating ownership

documents in their favour before the draw of lots. It was in the course of

carrying out the aforesaid investigation that various documents have been

recovered from the main accused and his representatives/other accused

persons as also from the applicants. The petitioners were also examined

and in the course of investigation, the application forms of 46

dummy/proxy applicants that were recovered, were collected and referred

to Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi for comparison with the

specimen handwritings of these dummy/proxy applicants and the accused

persons, vide receipts issued by DDA, between the period of February and

April, 2009 but, the said opinion is still awaited. Further, investigations

have revealed that the petitioners herein were dummy/proxy applicants

and even the funds for filling their application forms were arranged by the

accused, Mithan Lal Gautam as per his statement recorded under Section

161 Cr.PC.

5. Counsel for respondent No.4/EOW therefore states that the

applications for allotment of DDA flats were fraudulently filed on behalf of

the present petitioners and flats have been got allotted to them

fraudulently so as to wrongfully gain at the cost of genuine applicants. It

is submitted that the in view of the pending criminal cases arising out of

FIR No.2/2009, the DDA be restrained from issuing the demand-cum-

allotment letters to the petitioners herein, as prayed for by them in the

present petitions.

6. Counsel for the petitioners denies all the aforesaid allegations

and states that none of the petitioners have been named as accused in

the chargesheets filed before the trial court and further denies the fact

that the main accused, namely, Mithan Lal Gautam had funded the

application forms of the petitioners.

7. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and

examined the documents placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that

respondents No.1 to 3/DDA had declared the petitioners successful

allottees under LIG category in respect of the DDA Housing Scheme 2008

but, they have not been issued demand-cum-allotment letters as per the

directions of respondent No.4/EOW, Crime Branch, in view of the pending

criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.2/2009 filed by the EOW. It is

stated by learned counsel for respondent No.4/EOW that the aforesaid

case is at the stage of arguments on charge. He, however, concedes that

none of the petitioners have been arrayed as accused in any of the

chargesheets filed till date and they are only cited as witnesses.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, without making any

observations on the merits of the pending criminal proceedings, it is

deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petitions, with liberty

granted to the petitioners to seek vacation/modification of the direction

dated 29.10.2009 issued by respondent No.4/EWO to the respondents

No.1 to 3/DDA by filing appropriate applications in that regard before the

learned ACMM. As and when the petitioners file such applications, the

same shall be considered and disposed of by the trial court, as per law.

'


                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY     06, 2012                                     JUDGE
dk/sk