Krishan Lal vs D.D.A.
2015 Latest Caselaw 5950 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         W.P.(C) 3466/2008
       KRISHAN LAL                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Senior Advocate
                          with Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma and Mr. S.K.
                          Rout Advocates.

                          versus

       D.D.A.                                          ..... Respondent
                          Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Senior Standing
                          counsel.

      CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
                     ORDER

      %              14.08.2015
R.P. No. 141 of 2014

1. This petition has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority („DDA‟) seeking review of the judgment dated 29th March 2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3466 of 2008.

2. CM No.3987 of 2014 has been filed by the DDA seeking condonation of delay of 1041 days in filing the review petition. CM No. 3988 of 2014 seeks stay of the judgment dated 29th March 2011.

3. Notice in the review petition and the said applications was issued on 25 th April, 2014 and thereafter pleadings have been completed.

4. Before proceeding to discuss the averments in the writ petition, it is

necessary to briefly advert to the circumstances in which the judgement dated 29th March 2011 was passed.

5. The case of the Petitioner was that he had migrated to India during partition and had been given barrack No.H-89, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi measuring 80 sq. yds. On 28th June 1989, the Petitioner applied to the DDA to avail of the scheme under which the Government decided to allot alternative plots to displaced persons as the said barracks were to be demolished. He later submitted the relevant documents to the Committee appointed for the purpose of scrutinizing the applications. The Petitioner‟s refugee registration certificate was verified and the Committee recommended his case for allotment of an alternative plot. On 9 th July 2002, the Committee‟s recommendation was placed before the Vice Chairman of the DDA who raised certain objections. One of these concerned the survey list of 1967. The Petitioner also approached the Permanent Lok Adalat („PLA‟) who recommended the Petitioner‟s case by an order dated 26th August 2003. The PLA inter alia opined that there was no doubt about the name and identity of the Petitioner‟s parentage which was also mentioned in his Pension Card.

6. With no alternative plot allotted, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C)No. 3466 of 2008, praying for mandamus to be issued to the DDA to allot him an alternative plot under the Redevelopment Scheme of Kingsway Camp. After perusing the affidavit filed by the DDA in the matter, the Court examined the documents and referred inter alia to the correspondence which was on the file. This correspondence referred inter alia to a letter dated 20th June

2002, purported to have been issued by the Settlement Officer, Rehabilitation (Division), Government of India, which stated that the Petitioner was a displaced person who had migrated to India during the partition of the country in 1947, along with his family members such as his wife and three children. By letter dated 1st March 2004, the DDA posed a question as to whether the information is correct since as per the information with them the Petitioner could have been 12-13 years old at that time. The Settlement Officer then confirmed by a letter dated 9 th March 2004 that the Petitioner‟s documents were found genuine and matched with their authenticated record. The DDA was asked to read the sentence in the earlier letter to the effect that the Petitioner resided in H-89, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp along with his family.

7. In the above circumstances, the Court held in its judgment dated 29th March 2011 that the recommendation made by the PLA was based on a correct analysis. A mandamus was issued to the DDA to allot an alternative plot to the Petitioner in terms of the Redevelopment Scheme of Kingsway Camp.

8. It is averred in the present review petition by the DDA that pursuant to the above judgment, the Petitioner was offered a plot measuring 80 sq.yds. in Dr. Mukherjee Nagar. However, the Petitioner declined to accept it since a high tension wire was running over the plot. The Petitioner then filed a Contempt Case (Civil) No. 474 of 2011. It is further averred by DDA in the review petition that in the meanwhile in a similar case of allotment of an alternative plot, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 3056 of 2011 (Rajendra Kumar Chawla v.

DDA), a clarification was sought by the DDA from the Settlement Officer, regarding the genuineness of the letter issued by Mr. Pravir Pandey, the Settlement Officer who had identified the refugee status of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Chawla. It should be mentioned at this stage that the letter dated 9 th March 2004 relied upon by the Petitioner was also issued by the same Mr. Pravir Pandey, Settlement Officer.

9. By a letter dated 1st May 2013, Freedom Fighters and Rehabilitation („FFR‟) Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the DDA that the files in which the letters had been issued were not traceable. It was made known that Mr. Pravir Pandey had been appointed as Joint Chief Settlement Commissioner for exercising certain powers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) („DPCR‟) Act, 1954 by a notification dated 9th July 2002. Subsequently, some more powers under the DPCR Act were delegated to the same officer by another notification dated 25th October 2004. These notifications were enclosed with the letter. Further, it was stated that from some of the old records, a sample copy of which was enclosed, "it is seen that the signature of Shri Pravir Pandey was different from the signature appended on the letter dated 7th May 2003". It is stated that in relation to the aforementioned letter issued in the case of Mr. Chawla, the DDA filed a complaint on 10th June 2013 with the police station at Kotla Mubarakpur.

10. Since the two letters dated 20th June 2002 issued by Mr. Satish Chander, Settlement Officer and 9th March 2004 issued by Mr. Pravir Pandey, Settlement Officer, were relied on in the Petitioner‟s case as well, the DDA

wrote a letter dated 9th May 2013 to the FFR Division asking them to verify the authenticity of the said two letters. The DDA asked for this to be done on priority basis as the contempt petition in the matter was pending. On 25th July 2013, the FFR Division informed the DDA that the file from which the letter dated 9th March 2004 was issued was not traceable. In addition to the information that Mr. Pravir Pandey was appointed as Joint Chief Settlement Commissioner for exercising certain powers under DPCR Act, the letter stated that "He was never appointed as Settlement officer in the Rehabilitation Division of this Ministry". Another letter was sent by the DDA on 16th August 2013 requiring the FFR Division to at least confirm the file number and file head as stated in the letter dated 9 th March 2013. The FFR Division was further asked by the DDA to confirm whether Mr. Satish Chander was, in fact, a Settlement Officer at the time the letter dated 20th June 2002 was issued.

11. It appears that in response to the aforementioned letter, the FFR Division informed the DDA on 27th January 2014 that the file from which the letter dated 20th June 2002 addressed to the Petitioner by the said Division was issued was not traceable. The letter further stated as under:

"There is no record available to show that the Section Officer concerned namely Shri Satish Chander was appointed as Settlement Officer or delegated powers of Settlement Officer in Settlement Wing of this Division. A sample copy of a letter signed by Shri Satish Chander, Section Officer written in different context is however sent herewith for verifying signature of Section Officer."

12. The DDA states that when the above facts emerged, it concluded that the Petitioner had produced fabricated documents on the basis of which the judgment was passed by this Court on 29th March 2011. Since the above facts could not be brought earlier to the attention of this Court, the DDA filed the present petition seeking review of the said judgment.

13. The review petition has been resisted on several grounds articulated by Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the Non- Applicant (in the review petition )/Writ Petitioner. At the outset, there is an objection to the inordinate delay in filing the review petition. It is stated, inter alia, that in the narration contained in the review petition itself it is claimed that the DDA was made aware by the FFR Division as early as 25th July 2013 that the files from which the said two letters were issued were not traceable and yet the review petition was not filed till March 2014. It was further added that no effort was made by the DDA to actually follow up the matter with the FFR Division resulting in further avoidable delay. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat (1981) 1 SCC 495 it was submitted that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay from the date of the judgment i.e. 29th March 2011 till the date of filing of the review petition. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Union of India v. CL Jain Woolen Mills 131 (2006) DLT 360 (DB,) Narain Dass R. Israni v. Union of India 48(1992) DLT 297, Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 and DDA v. Ramesh Kumar 214 (2014) DLT 333.

14. It was further submitted by Mr. Sethi that the DDA itself having allotted a plot to the Petitioner pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court, it cannot take advantage of the fact that the Petitioner did not accept the plot and now turn around and seek to question the very entitlement of the Petitioner to such plot. While raising the plea of estoppel, it was submitted that there was a high tension wire running over the plot allotted and therefore the Petitioner was justified in refusing to take possession of such a plot.

15. It was submitted by Mr. Sethi that none of the grounds on which the review is sought is based on any conclusive facts, but merely on suspicion. Since the status of the Petitioner as a displaced person was not disputed and the entitlement of the Petitioner for an alternative plot in terms of the policy has been sufficiently established through various documents, de hors the two documents regarding which the DDA now has a suspicion, there were no grounds made out for review of the order of the Court. It was submitted that since the Petitioner's legal rights had fructified, the Court ought not to examine the merits of the matter, whether for the purposes of condoning the delay or otherwise. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of Jharkhand v. Ashok Kumar Chokhani AIR 2009 SC 1927, P Mani Moopanar v. K. Rajammal (2005) 11 SCC 800 and Commr. Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara v. Labour Court (2009) 3 SCC 525.

16. Mr. Sethi submitted that even as regards the two letters all that was stated is that files were "not traceable". The statement that Mr. Pravir Pandey was not a Settlement Officer had not been backed up by producing

his service record. The two letters in question were written by the FFR Division pursuant to the letter written to it by the DDA and the Petitioner had nothing to do with the said correspondence. As far as the Petitioner was concerned, he could not be made to suffer for the loss of the files of the FFR Division. He was pursuing his application bona fide on the basis of the letters furnished to him by the Settlement Officer at the relevant time and unless there was sufficient proof of the allegations now made, the Court should be cautious in coming to a conclusion about the allegation of fraud.

17. Mr. Sethi referred to Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and submitted that it creates a presumption of genuineness of official letters issued by the officers whose authority to issue such letters has not been rebutted by the DDA. Relying on the decision of this Court in Highbrow Education Society v. Lt. Governor 2007 VI AD (Del) 181, Mr. Sethi submitted that the DDA has not produced any material indicating that they have made any complaint against the two officers who issued the said two letters i.e. Mr. Satish Chander and Mr. Pravir Pandey. It was stated that no criminal complaint has been filed against the Petitioner by the DDA. It is finally submitted that the legal grounds on which the Court would review its earlier order have not been made out in the present case.

18. Mr. Ajay Verma, learned counsel for the DDA produced before the Court copy of the complaint filed by the DDA with the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police on 27th February 2014, alleging forgery in relation to the letters submitted by the Petitioner. He also pointed out how the DDA has been following up the matter with the police thereafter from time to

time. He pointed out that on its part, the DDA has been diligent in pursuing the matters both with the FFR Division and the Delhi Police and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court should review its judgment dated 29th March 2011. He submitted that the unearthing of the fraud played on the DDA in the above matter, subsequent to the passing of the judgment dated 29th March 2011, goes to the root of the matter and unravels the very basis of the said judgment.

19. First, on the question of delay in filing the review petition, the Court notes that DDA got the information that the relevant files were not traceable from the FFR Division by the latter's letter dated 25th July 2013. It was only on 27th January 2014 that the DDA got definite information from the Government of India that there was no record available to show that Mr. Satish Chander was ever appointed as Settlement Officer. The contention of Mr. Verma is that when DDA compared the specimen signatures of Mr. Satish Chander with those appearing in the letter dated 20th June 2002, it found them to be prima facie different.

20. While the Court does not wish to express an opinion on whether the letters produced by the Petitioner are, in fact, genuine or not, the Court is satisfied that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the DDA in filing the review petition on 5th March 2014 after receipt of the aforementioned letter dated 27th January 2014.

21. The circumstances under which the DDA entertained a suspicion about the genuineness of the two letters have been explained in sufficient detail in

the review petition. The Court is satisfied that the DDA had justifiable grounds for seeking clarifications from the FFR Division regarding the documents submitted by the Petitioner and the time taken by the DDA in getting those clarifications has also been sufficiently and adequately explained. Though the delay of 1041 days might seem extraordinary, in light of the facts and circumstances explained by the DDA, there appears to be genuine reason for such delay. The Court is satisfied that the delay of 1041 days deserves to be condoned and accordingly CM No. 3987 of 2014 is allowed.

22. Turning to the review petition, the detailed narration in the review petition and the documents now produced with it, unmistakably show that the facts that came to light in the correspondence between the DDA and the FFR Division, were not available with the DDA when the Court passed the judgment dated 29th March 2011. These facts a direct bearing on the merits of the writ petition. If it is shown that the letter dated 20th June 2002 stated to have been signed by Mr. Satish Chander as Settlement Officer and the letter dated 9th March 2004 signed by Mr. Pravir Pandey as Settlement Officer are not genuine documents, or in any event not issued under appropriate authority of law, then they ought to be completely kept aside and cannot form the basis of the consideration of the case of the Petitioner. This will obviously require a detailed examination. This might entail affidavits being filed both by the DDA as well as the Petitioner. The Court does not propose to undertake the exercise of examining the circumstances under which the said two letters came into the possession of the Petitioner and whether there are sufficient grounds, as far as the DDA is concerned to

doubt their genuineness. Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied that the facts that have now emerged after passing of the judgment dated 29 th March 2011 by the Court, constitute sufficient grounds for the DDA to seek review of the said judgment.

23. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court recalls the judgment dated 29th March 2011. The review petition is accordingly allowed and Writ Petition (C) No.3466 of 2008 is restored to file. CM No. 3988 of 2014 is disposed of.

24. It is clarified that it is open to the Petitioner to seek to establish his claim on the basis of the materials other than the aforementioned two letters dated 20th June 2002 and 9th March 2004. It will also be open to the DDA to urge the Court to consider the effect that the bringing on record of such letters by the Petitioner would have on the merits of his claim.

W.P.(C) No. 3466 of 2008

25. List before the roster Bench on 14th September 2015.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

AUGUST 14, 2015 mg