Delhi High Court
K.L. Narang vs Delhi Development Authroity on 19 August, 2014
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4687/2014
K.L. NARANG ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Aman Panwar and
Ms. Deepika Kalia, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel.
Reserved on : 30th July, 2014
% Date of Decision : 19th August, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13 th July,
2006 passed by the Estates Officer-1, DDA under Section 5 (1) of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unathorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [for short 'PP Act']
against the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, namely, his deceased wife. The
prayer clause in the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"a) Quash the order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the DDA,
which led to illegal demolition of the Petitioner's Property.
b) Reinstate the Petitioner at the concerned property, from
which he was illegally evicted by the DDA.
c) Pass such other and further orders and/or directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts of
the present case."
2. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for petitioner stated that when a
person had selected his advocate, briefed him and paid his fee, he could remain
confident that his lawyer would look after his interest and such an innocent
party should not be made to suffer for inaction, deliberate omission or
misdemeanor of his counsel.
3. Mr. Vikas Singh contended that the erroneous act of his counsel in
withdrawing CM(M) 900/2008 could not completely block/choke the petitioner
from seeking any legal recourse.
4. Mr. Vikas Singh further stated that despite petitioner being protected by
National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2007 [for
short 'Act, 2007'], petitioner stood evicted under PP Act. He pointed out that in
a similar matter, i.e., Khushi Seva Sanstha Vs. The State & Ors., W.P.(C)
2000/2012 decided on 16th January, 2003 involving rights over the land in the
same locality that means Arakpur Bagh Mochi, it had been held "similarly, no
action can be taken in respect of special areas as defined in Section 2(i) of the
Act. No action for demolition of unauthorized construction or removal of
encroachment in respect of unauthorized colony can be taken if such colony
existed on 31.3.2002 and the construction took place on or before 8.2.2007."
5. It is pertinent to mention that the eviction order dated 13 th July, 2006
was impugned by the petitioner's wife by way of a Civil Miscellaneous Main
Petition being CM(M) 900/2008 before this Court. However, the same was
dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 29th September, 2008 dismissing the
CM(M) as withdrawn is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"CM (M) 900/2008
Counsel for the Petitioner States that the Petitioner wants
to withdraw the petition despite his advise that he has a strong
case.
The petition is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as
such."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Subsequently, a writ petition being W.P.(C) 7392/2008 was filed by the
petitioner's wife challenging the very same order dated 13 th July, 2006 passed
by the Estate Officer-1, DDA. The said writ petition was also dismissed by
another learned Single Judge of this Court with costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the
ground of suppression and deliberate mis-statement.
7. The third writ petition being W.P.(C) 832/2009 challenging amongst
others the very same eviction order dated 13th July, 2006, was also dismissed
by a third learned Single Judge vide order dated 18th March, 2009. The
relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereineblow:-
"2. At the outset, counsel for the respondent states that the present
writ petition is a gross abuse of the process of court for the reason
that the petitioner had filed an earlier petition, registered as
CM(M) No.900/2008, wherein she had assailed the order dated
13.7.2006 passed by the Estate Officer and the order dated
16.7.2008 passed by the learned ADJ under Section 9 of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He
further states that the aforesaid petition was withdrawn by the
petitioner without seeking any leave from the Court for preferring a
separate petition and without the Court grating any such leave.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed another writ petition,
registered as WP(C)No.7392/2008 praying inter alia, amongst
others, for the same relief i.e. for quashing the order dated
13.7.2006 passed by the Estate Officer and order dated 16.7.2008
passed by the learned ADJ, against the petitioner.
3. In the aforesaid writ petition, vide order dated 20.10.2008,
the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner
neither filed a copy of the CM(M) nor placed on record the order
passed thereon. It was observed that the petitioner had made a
deliberate misstatement to the effect that she had withdrawn
CM(M) No.900/2008 on 29.9.2008 for filing a comprehensive
writ petition to reduce multiplicity of litigation, whereas the factual
position was otherwise. The Court therefore concluded that it was a
case of suppression of relevant facts and information and a
deliberate misstatement to mislead the court. As a result, the
aforesaid writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be
paid to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, by holding that the same
was an abuse of the process of the court It is pertinent to note that
the aforesaid costs have not been paid by the petitioner till date.
Rather, the petitioner has sought waiver of the costs, which issue is
pending consideration in WP(C) No.7392/2008.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
11. In view of the fact that the earlier writ petition preferred by the
petitioner was dismissed as an abuse of the process of the court,
the question of permitting the petitioner to re-agitate the same issue
in the present writ petition does not arise.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that
the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had
sought identical relief in two earlier petitions preferred by her.
When she withdrew CM(M) NO.900/2008, without reserving her
right to file a fresh petition, did not seek review of the order dated
29.9.2008 passed therein, and went on to file a fresh petition, i.e.
WP(C) No.7392/2008, which was dismissed with costs
of Rs.50,000/- on the ground of deliberate concealment of material
facts, which order has also attained finality, the petitioner could not
have maintained a third petition on the same cause of action. This
petition amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court and is
liable to be dismissed with costs."
8. Even a letters patent appeal being LPA No. 247/2009 was dismissed by
a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25th May, 2009. The relevant
portion of the said order reads as under:-
"3. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the petition filed
by the appellant amounts to gross abuse of the process of the court
and was liable to be dismissed. We find no infirmity in the said
order of the learned single Judge to warrant any interference. The
appeal is accordingly, dismissed. All applications stand disposed
of."
9. The primary ground for filing the present writ petition is that the
petitioner's wife's counsel had erroneously withdrawn CM (M) 900/2008.
10. However, the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed in CM(M)
900/2008 clearly shows that the withdrawal was on the instruction of the
petitioner's wife and contrary to the advice of the counsel.
11. It is pertinent to mention that the same counsel had continued to appear
for the petitioner's wife in W.P.(C) 7392/2008, W.P.(C) 832/2009 and LPA
247/2009.
12. Consequently, petitioner's argument that CM(M) was erroneously or
negligently withdrawn by the petitioner's wife's counsel, is contrary to facts.
13. Further, the petitioner's reliance on Act, 2007 is untenable in law as
today the petitioner stands evicted and the Act, 2007 does not stipulate that
where proceedings have concluded, evictees have to be put back in possession.
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that present
writ petition is not only bereft of any merit, but it also amounts to relitigation.
This Court as well as the Apex Court have repeatedly held that relitigation is
opposed to public policy and should be curbed with a heavy hand.
15. In N.D. Qureshi Vs. Union of India, 2008 (13) DRJ 547, a Division
Bench of this Court of which the present Bench was a party has observed as
under:-
"12. Moreover, from the above narrated facts, it would be
apparent that the petitioner has been re-litigating for a
considerable number of years. In our view on the principle of res
judicata and re-litigation the petitioner is even barred from
raising new pleas for the same old relief. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi and others, reported in (1998) 3
SCC 573 has held that it is an abuse of the process of the court
and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate
the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier
against him. This re-agitation may or may not be barred as res
judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also
amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further held that if a spurious claim is made in
a case, it may also amount to an abuse of process of the court. In
our view, frivolous or vexatious proceedings amount to an abuse
of the process of the court especially where the proceedings are
absolutely groundless-like in the present case."
16. Keeping in view the aforesaid, present petition is dismissed, but with no
order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
AUGUST 19, 2014
rn
