Delhi High Court
Sohan Pal vs D.D.A. on 8 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 8th January, 2019
+ LPA 1/2019 & CM. Nos. 3/2019, 4/2019 and 5/2019
SOHAN PAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs.
versus
D.D.A. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv.
AND
+ LPA 2/2019 & CM. Nos. 26/2019, 27/2019 and 28/2019
BALJIT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs.
versus
D. D. A. (DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Komal Sorout, Adv.
AND
+ LPA 3/2019 & CM. Nos. 29/2019, 30/2019 and 31/2019
MAHENDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs.
versus
D. D. A. (DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Komal Sorout, Adv.
AND
+ LPA 4/2019 & CM. Nos. 32/2019, 33/2019 and 34/2019
MADAN LAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and
LPA. No. 1/2019 and connected matters Page 1 of 5
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs.
versus
D. D. A. (DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Komal Sorout, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM. No. 5/2019 in LPA No. 1/2019
CM. No. 28/2019 in LPA No. 2/2019
CM. No. 31/2019 in LPA No. 3/2019
CM. No. 34/2019 in LPA No. 4/2019
Exemptions allowed subject to all just exception.
Applications stand disposed of.
CM. No. 4/2019 in LPA No. 1/2019
CM. No. 27/2019 in LPA No. 2/2019
CM. No. 30/2019 in LPA No. 3/2019
CM. No. 33/2019 in LPA No. 4/2019
These applications have been filed by the appellants seeking
condonation of delay in filing the appeals. For the reasons stated in the
applications delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Applications stand
disposed of.
LPA 1/2019
LPA 2/2019
LPA 3/2019
LPA 4/2019
1. These four appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging
common orders dated 9th August, 2018 and 9th September, 2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge in four different writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.
9222/2017 (filed by appellant Sohan Pal), W.P.(C) 10574/2017 (filed by
appellant Madan Lal) and W.P.(C) 10582/2017 (filed by appellant Baljit) and
W.P.(C) 10588/2017 (filed by appellant Mahender Singh) and in CM. No.
36623/2018 in W.P.(C)9222/2017, CM. No. 36728/2018 in W.P.(C)
10574/2018, CM. No. 36624/2018 in W.P.(C) 10582/2017 and CM. No.
36625/2018 in W.P.(C) 10588/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petitions and also dismissed the applications of the
appellants for modification of order dated 9th August, 2018.
2. The only submission made by Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants is that order dated 9th August, 2018 came
to be passed in the presence of Mr. Sanjay Baniwal, Advocate who was the
proxy counsel for him. His appearance was only to seek a pass over. He also
states that the modification applications were primarily filed by the appellants
to contend that they are ready to file an undertaking that they shall vacate the
property in question by 31st December, 2019 in terms of the order of the
Supreme Court in SLP No. 5253/2018 dated 20th March, 2018. Mr. Mishra
states, the ld. Single Judge should have allowed the CMs. as no prejudice is
going to be caused to the respondents if the appellants are allowed to vacate
the properties by that date.
3. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondent / DDA opposes the prayer on the ground that in a subsequent
order dated 10th August, 2018, the Supreme Court on noting that the
petitioners therein have not sought for any time to file their undertakings till
that date had recalled the order dated 20th March, 2018 (referred above).
Similarly in these writ petitions also a categorical stand was taken by the
learned counsel for the appellants that they do not want to withdraw the
petitions and also do not want to avail the time to vacate the premises as has
been granted to other persons similarly placed. The writ petitions were heard.
According to him, it was this conduct of the appellants which was noted by
the learned Single Judge while rejecting the applications. He states no
indulgence should be shown to the appellants.
4. Having considered the rival pleas taken by the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the orders passed by the Supreme Court wherein in
the order dated 10th August, 2018, the Supreme Court has noted that the
petitioners therein have not asked for further time to vacate the properties till
that date had recalled the order dated 20th March, 2018 qua those petitioners.
In the case in hand, even assuming that the appellants have expressed
themselves that they have no desire to give an undertaking but in the
applications filed subsequently, they have expressed themselves for filing an
undertaking to vacate the properties by 31st December, 2019, their prayer
should have been granted. We are of the view that on the appellants filing an
undertaking before this court within one week from today (by giving a copy
to Mr. Relan) that they shall vacate the properties on or before 31 st
December, 2019, they shall be allowed to continue. It is made clear that this
order is passed with respect to the appellants before this court and shall not
enure to the benefit of any other person. It is also made clear that if
undertakings are not filed within one week from the date of receipt of the
copy of the order, then the said undertaking shall not be taken on record and
this order shall be deemed to have been vacated.
The appeals are disposed of.
CM. No. 3/2019 in LPA No. 1/2019
CM. No. 26/2019 in LPA No. 2/2019
CM. No. 29/2019 in LPA No. 3/2019
CM. No. 32/2019 in LPA No. 4/2019
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
JANUARY 08, 2019/jg
