Delhi High Court
Bimla Devi And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 2 January, 2017
$~A-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 02.01.2017
+ CM(M) 1383/2016
BIMLA DEVI AND ANR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Raghuvinder Godara, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Advocate
with Ms.Sarita Panda, Advocate for R-2/DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
the petitioners seek to impugn the order dated 26.11.2016 by which the
application filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioners is that certain properties owned by late Shri
Lakhmi Chand were acquired by the Govt.of NCT of Delhi. The Award was
passed on 9.12.2002. Same was enhanced by the High Court by order dated
12.1.2012. Shri Lakhmi Chand expired on 2.7.2012. Execution was filed
seeking compensation. It was at this stage that some of the LRs of late Shri
Lakhmi Chand propounded a will dated 4.6.2012 whereby no amount is
payable to the petitioners. The executing court recorded the submissions of
CM(M)1383/2016 Page 1
the petitioners on 21.11.2013 stating that they do not make a claim of the
compensation. Hence, the amount became payable to the other LRs of late
Shri Lakhmi Chand other than the petitioners, who are noted as beneficiaries
under the Will dated 4.6.2012. Now, the present application was filed by the
petitioners claiming that the petitioners should be allowed to receive their
share of compensation being LRs of late Shri Lakhmi Chand.
3. The trial court by the impugned order in view of the earlier statement
recorded by the petitioners dismissed the application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made several
submissions to support his case including that when the statement was
recorded on 21.11.2013, the Will of late Shri Lakhmi Chand in question
dated 4.6.2012 was not exhibited, the petitioners never agreed to the Will,
counsels appearing for the alleged beneficiaries of the will had also been
appearing for all the parties and wrongly advised the petitioners to make the
statement, they did not comprehend the contents of the will etc.
5. In my opinion, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners.
The petitioners are bound by the statements recorded in court. The statement
of Smt.Mohar Kaur reads as follows:-
"AW-2 Statement of Smt.Mohar Kaur aged about 80 years s/o
Late Sh.Lakhmi Chand R/o VPO Pochanpur, Delhi.
On S.A.
I am one of LRs of late Shri Lakhmi Chand (who was one of the
decree holder in the above stated matter). I admit to the Will
dated 04.06.2012 i.e. Mark A. I do not claim any right, title or
interest in the amount of compensation to be assessed in my
favour being the LR of Sh.Lakhmi Chand and relinquish the
same in favour of Shri Baljit Singh (s/o Shri Lakhmi Chand),
Sh.Jasbir Singh (s/o Sh.Lakhmi Chand), Ramwati (w/o
CM(M)1383/2016 Page 2
Sh.Krishan) and Smt.Mukesh (w/o Sh.Ranjit Singh) in equal
shares. I am making the statement out of my free will without
any force or pressure. Copy of my Aadhar Card is Ex.AW2/1
(OS&R). This is my true and correct statement.
-sd/-
RO&AC (ALOK AGARWAL)
ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
21.11.2013"
A similar statement was made by the other petitioner.
6. In this context reference may be had to the judgment of this Court in
Paul Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Estate Officer Life Insurance
Corporation of India & Anr., LPA 298/2010 (MANU/DE/1511/2010),
wherein this court held as follows:
"33. At this juncture, we think it appropriate to observe that on a
keener scrutiny of the order of the proceedings before the learned
Single Judge, it is clear that it is an unequivocal concession with
regard to a finding of fact which has been arrived at by the Estate
Officer. While the learned Singe Judge was going to dismiss the
writ petition, time was sought for and thereafter, concession was
given. The concession of a counsel in a court of law has its own
sacrosanctity. It is not the case where there was no consultation
whatsoever. On a scrutiny of the entire gamut of the facts, it
emerges with utmost clarity which can be envisioned that a
maladroit attempt was made to take a somersault and wriggle out
of the same. In case the same, if we allow ourselves to say so, is
permitted, it will usher in a state of anarchy in the process of
adjudication and the high tradition of the Bar and the acceptance
of statements made at the Bar would be in jeopardy. The law does
not countenance the same either in the expanse of substantive law
or in the expansion of adjective law."
7. In the light of the above judgment, in my opinion, the petitioners
cannot be permitted to resile/back out from the assertions made in court. In
CM(M)1383/2016 Page 3
the present case the concession is made by the parties themselves.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition. Same is
dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
JAYANT NATH, J
JANUARY 02, 2017
n
CM(M)1383/2016 Page 4
