Petitioner challenged a prior Division Bench judgment that dismissed her property dispute by doubling down on allegations of forgery by officials. The single judge found the matter final and dismissed the petition.
The petition was dismissed as it involved matter that had already attained finality.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RAM KAUR & ANR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Dr. H.P. Sharma, Mr. Paras Joshi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA/R-2. Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel, North DMC/R-3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 4670/2018
At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner does not press Crl.M.A. 4670/2018 by which he had sought the relief that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition.
Application is dismissed as withdrawn.
W.P.(CRL) 753/2018
“ a) Issue a writ/ writs, direction/ directions in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent number 2 and 3 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the resolution dated 28th of January 1943 and the action initiated upon the same.
b) Issue a writ/ writs, direction/ directions in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Union of India the respondent
W.P.(CRL) 753/2018 Page 1 of 7
No.1 to initiate action against the guilty officers for forging the DIT resolution dated 28th of January 1943 particularly when such resolution was admitted by the officials of the respondent number 2 and 3.
c) Issue a writ/ writs, direction/ directions in the nature of writ of mandamus to compensate/ rehabilitate the petitioners after the duo enquiry in order to protect the interest of aggrieved person.
d) Pass such further order/ orders as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
W.P.(CRL) 753/2018 Page 2 of 7
settled possession of various properties for more than 37 years having some documents in his favour. It is the case of the petitioner that in DDA late Ram Ashre Parashar who working as Assistant Engineer manipulated the documents due to which the petitioner suffered adverse directions of this Court and lost rights in properties bearing No.27/17 and 27/18 Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007.
W.P.(CRL) 753/2018 Page 3 of 7
No.604/1981 for specific performance of the agreement to sell which was decreed on 17th May, 1982 and Gulam Moinuddin executed a sale deed dated 10th November, 1982. It was claimed by the petitioner No.1 that she had leased out the property to her son Parmanand Parasher/ petitioner No.2 herein on a monthly rent of ₹100/-.
W.P.(CRL) 753/2018 Page 4 of 7
acquired land was developed and divided into blocks that were sub-divided into various plots. Plot No.17/27 in Shakti Nagar with area of 222.91 sq. yards was sold by DIT on 3rd March, 1943 to K.B. Sahibuddin based on his bid through his tender and possession was also handed-over to him.
“ “80. The Court had, during the proceedings in these set of appeals made efforts to ensure handing over of the possession to the rightful owners of the plot and also urged DDA and MCD to have a joint meeting of Commissioner, MCD and Vice President DDA. This meeting took place and the minutes of the meeting were placed on the record of this court on 23.08.2005. Thereafter, two meetings were held in the Chamber of Vice Chairman, DDA on 16.08.2005 and 19.08.2005 (Page 463 of Volume II LPA). After deliberating upon the issue, the minutes of the meeting were drawn. In their meeting held on 16.08.2005, they had decided to take various courses of actions including registration of FIR against the plaintiffs, possibility of locating an alternate plot, shifting of park and removal of encroachers from plot Nos. 17 and 18. The site too was inspected and the site inspection showed that MCD had constructed a landscaped garden encompassing almost 500 sq. feet of plot No.17. In the subsequent second meeting held on 19.08.2005, it was noted that FIR had already been registered against the plaintiff for committing forgery of various documents and a decision was taken to allot to the LRs of Beli Ram Plot no.18, which was mostly vacant except encroachment on some portion of the plot. It is apparent that despite these meetings and the decisions taken at the higher level, MCD and
W.P.(CRL) 753/2018 Page 5 of 7
DDA had failed to hand over the vacant possession to LRs of Beli Ram after removing the encroachers from the suit properties.
81. MCD although was aware that plot No.17 belonged to LRs of late Sh.Beli Ram and the plot was required to be handed over to them, continued with possession of the park on said plot and did not vacate it within the time given by the Court. In these circumstances, we find no reason to set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge imposing costs of ₹30,000/-.
82. The Court has already held that plaintiff in suits nos. 158/2002 and 159/2002 are unauthorized occupants in the suit properties. They are therefore directed to vacate the said property within four weeks from today. In case the plaintiffs fail to vacate the suit property within four weeks, DDA and MCD are within their rights to get the property vacated within four weeks thereafter with the help of police force. After getting the properties vacated, the vacant possession of Plot No.17 shall be handed over to the LR’s of Beli Ram. The plaintiffs are also restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit properties. The compliance report shall be furnished with this Court within three months from today.
83. In W.P.(C) No.103/1986, the single judge, in the impugned judgment had directed MCD to pay ₹70 lakhs to the petitioners towards current market value of Plot No.17 block No.27, Shakti Nagar since it had failed to handover the vacant possession of the plot to them. Since the Court has already issued directions for vacation of plot No.17 and then delivery of its possession to the writ petitioners i.e. legal representatives of Beli Ram, the order of payment of ₹70 lakhs is therefore set aside. MCD is directed to render all assistance to DDA to get both Plots 17 and 18 vacated.
84. With these directions, RFA No.409/2004 is allowed. The decree and judgment of the learned ADJ is hereby set aside. It is held that the LRs of Beli Ram are the true owners of the suit property. LPA No.58/2005 along with all the pending applications stands disposed of in terms of the directions given in the preceding paragraphs.” ”
W.P.(CRL) 753/2018 Page 6 of 7
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE
MARCH 13, 2018 ‘ga’
W.P.(CRL) 753/2018 Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was required to inquire into the allegation of forgery made by the petitioner regarding prior proceedings.
Whether the petitioner's proceedings have attained finality preventing further interference via a writ petition.
Ram Kaur
Union of India
DDA
North DMC
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
