Delhi High Court - Orders
Petition) Pradeep Aggarwal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 19 December, 2022
Author: Manoj Kumar Ohri
Bench: Manoj Kumar Ohri
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13482/2021 and CM APPL. 33765/2022 (For Dismissal of
Petition)
PRADEEP AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena and Mr. Sanjay Verma,
Advocates with petitioner in person
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for GNCTD
Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC for GNCTD with
Mr. Ujjawal Malhotra, Advocate
Mr. Virender Mehta and Mr. Abhishek, Advocates
for respondent No.5
Mr. Akhil Mittal, Standing Counsel for MCD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
ORDER
% 19.12.2022
1. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2/Corporation while referring to the short-affidavit filed on behalf of the answering respondent submits that the subject land falls under the definition of 'development area' as mandated under the Delhi Development Authority, 1957, hence the concerned authority to take action, if any, is DDA.
2. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, DDA is impleaded as respondent No. 7 to the array of parties.
3. On the amended memo of parties being filed, notice be issued to the newly impleaded respondent No. 7/DDA by all permissible modes, returnable on 08.02.2023.
Signature NotVerified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETAANAND CONT. CAS. (CRL.) /2022 (Suo Moto) (To Be Numbered)
1. By way of captioned writ petition, the petitioner had sought initiation of action against the illegal and unauthorized construction stated to be carried out at behest of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in Khasra No. 20/12/1 (1-
17) and 20/19 (4-16) situated at Village Burari. It was also claimed that the petitioner has addressed representation(s) to various authorities however, no action has been taken against the unauthorised construction till then.
2. In the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is the immediate neighbour to the mentioned Khasras. It was claimed that the petitioner had purchased his land from one Narender Kumar. The site plan as well as sale documents have also been placed on record.
3. While issuing notice in the writ petition on 15.12.2021, this Court directed that in the meantime, no unauthorized construction activity be permitted in the subject area except in accordance with a sanctioned scheme of the Government for creating plotted development or in accordance with a sanctioned building plan, if any.
4. Later, respondent No. 5/Ram Niwas Gupta (hereinafter, referred to as 'the respondent') preferred an application being CM APPL. 33765/2022 seeking dismissal of the writ petition and registration of FIR against the petitioner. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on his behalf. It is stated that the petitioner not only made false and incorrect averments, but also suppressed material facts in the writ petition.
5. While in the petition it has claimed himself only to be a neighbour of the respondent, the records reveal that the petitioner has been known to the answering respondent for the last two decades. Further, there have been not only multiple sale transactions, inter se, between them, they have also filed Signature NotVerified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETAANAND number of civil and criminal cases against each other apropos the land in question, details of which are extracted herein below:
(i) CS DJ/613504/2016 - Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal v. Ram Niwas Gupta,
(ii) CS DJ/617155/2016 - Ram Niwas Gupta v. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal,
(iii) CS DJ/47/2020 - Narender Kumar v. Pradeep Aggarwal,
(iv) CS DJ/647/2020 - Narender Kumar v. Pradeep Aggarwal and Ors., and
(v) RCA DJ/66/2021 - Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal v. Ram Niwas Gupta & Ors.
6. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that though the correct address of respondent was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, as apparent from the records of RCA DJ/66/2021, the respondent's address has been incorrectly mentioned as 'BD-12' mentioned in the memo of parties instead of his correct address i.e., 'BD-21'.
7. Alongwith the said application, respondent has also placed a transcript of conversation on record stated to have taken place between the petitioner and one Vijay (identified as 'Vijay Kumar Gupta') on 13.04.2022 and 27.05.2022. On 02.08.2022, noticing the following contents of transcript, it was directed that an enquiry be conducted:-
Pradeep What you have think approximate figure. My demand is of 50 and you intend to give 25 Vijay OK, I inform Amit and you have demanded 50 which is negotiable.
Vijay Your demand is 50 with copy of Girdawar report. Only these are 02 demands of you.
Signature NotVerified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETAANAND Pradeep The dispute of 3950 Sq.yds. will run with Ram Niwas in court. I will withdraw the case from the court after discussing with Ved Pal Rana so that I would not face any grievance or you also in future.
Vijay I will convey message.
Pradeep I am also agree with it 99%.
Vijay Payment will be made by them and if you desire, I can
arrange meeting and you may final it if deemed fit. Pradeep Instead of meeting, I would prefer to discuss specifically on phone. The matter of Court would be seen by me and him; make the balance payment to him or not.
Pradeep Rakesh knows them well, he has already completed work on his land, he can adjust (expenses). It will be ended with 10/20 thousand only and not expensive expenses. He will not demand 2/4 Lacs Vijay They offered you 25 Lakhs but you are demanding 50 Lakhs, it is negotiable or.
Pradeep Yes
Vijay It is not fixed (Naa)
Pradeep No No, negotiable, meeting will arrange. Vijay Only you did not file complaint against unauthorized. Pradeep My associate, which you know, no complaint will be filed by the side of us. Yes, no call will be made and no obstruction for way will be created from my side. I will also withdraw my Signature NotVerified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETAANAND case from the court after talking with Vedpal Rana. Pradeep Judge has also said about unauthorized construction. I will withdraw the case after meeting with Vedpal Rana. If I do not withdraw the case or not filed the complaint, what would be the use of it. "Murge Ki Jaan Gayi Khane Wale to Maja Nahi Aya, Is Ka Faida Kya"
Pradeep After the withdrawal of that case, final payment will be made.
When I received 50% or 70%, case will be withdrawn and only then will take final payment Vijay Bhai it is not done like it, the order of High Court will remain pending, what would be the benefit of it?
Vijay After disconnecting the phone, it came to my mind that the order of High Court will remain pending; anyone may file complaint.
Pradeep I told that I will discuss with Vedpal Rana and withdraw the case.
Pradeep When the case of unauthorized construction will be withdrawn.
Vijay OK, the issue will be ended then.
Pradeep From my side it will be informed to all dealers that I have withdrawn the case so that you may not face inconvenience while selling the land. You are not giving money to me unnecessarily. "Murge Ki Jaan Gayi Khane Wale to Maja Nahi Aya, Is Ka Faida Kya"
Vijay OK.
Signature NotVerified
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETAANAND
Vijay Arrangement of Rs. Five Lacs will be made till evening by 05
PM. I will pay Rs. Five Lacs till evening and total amount of Rs.07 Lacs will also be arranged by tomorrow.
Vijay Seven is required or take five
Pradeep Rest 13 Lacs
Vijay According to commitment, Rs. 13 Lacs will be delivered
within 3/4 days
Pradeep I have also made transaction with Ram Niwas twice and you
also met Ram Niwas many times. Will pay Rs. 10 Lacs more, but Shyam Sunder could not get the deal materialized. The influential person like Amit also could not done. Vijay No doubt in it. You have filed case in High Court and we are being exploited unnecessarily. Ideally between you and Ram Niwas, we have no transaction of give & take, if you are unhappy, tell me.
Pradeep It is strange that it is difficult for Amit too, to arrange the funds Vijay Grievances are going-on, land has been defamed, we cannot see the problems of people
8. Subsequent thereto, a Status Report has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1/GNCTD wherein it was stated that during the enquiry, voice samples of the petitioner as well as Vijay Kumar Gupta were obtained and sent to FSL. Further, a statement of Vijay Kumar Gupta was also recorded in which he admitted that the aforesaid conversations were carried between the petitioner and him. He also admitted to recording the said Signature NotVerified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETAANAND conversations and submitted a Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
9. On the basis of the enquiry conducted, FIR No. 278/2022 under Section 384 IPC has been registered against the petitioner at P.S. Crime Branch.
10. The Status Report further reveals that Vijay Kumar Gupta has 12.5% share in the land in question and the telephonic conversations stated to have taken place between the petitioner and Vijay Kumar Gupta relate to the very same land against which directions are sought in the instant petition. On a plain reading of the transcript of the conversations, ex facie it appears that:
(a) A demand of Rs.50 lacs is made by the petitioner,
(b) Reference is made to proceedings relating to unauthorized construction,
(c) An order of the High Court, and
(d) Withdrawal of case of unauthorized construction after discussing the same with the Counsel, who had filed the present petition.
11. Having perused the transcript of conversations as well as entire material placed on record including the averments made in the writ petition, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent and the Status Report filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, this Court is of the prima facie view that the conduct of the petitioner is an attempt to interfere and obstruct the judicial proceedings and administration of justice, constituting criminal contempt, as defined under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Signature NotVerified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETAANAND
12. In terms of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, let the present matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for reference to the Roster Division Bench.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J DECEMBER 19, 2022 na Signature NotVerified Digitally Signed By:SANGEETAANAND