Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neha Kataria vs The Haryana Petroleum Corporation ... on 17 April, 2018
CWP No.13167 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
No.13167
CWP No. 13167 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 17.0
17.04
.04.2018
*****
Neha Kataria
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
The Haryana Petroleum Corporation Limited and others
. . . .Respondents
*****
CORAM:
COR AM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: - Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr.Kartik Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondent-Corporation.
Mr.R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr.Karan Pathak, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioner has challenged the letters dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017 by which the allotment of dealership of retail outlet i.e. "Between KM Stone 33-38 on Gohana-Kaithal Road, SH-11, District Jind" to the petitioner has been cancelled.
The brief facts of the case are that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited [for short 'the Corporation'] issued an advertisement on 25.10.2014, inviting applications for the allotment of dealership of regular retail outlet, in the open category, at the location between KM Stone 33-38 on Gohana-Kaithal Road, SH-11, District Jind. The selection for the dealership is governed by the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular 1 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:50 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 -2- & Rural Retail Outlets dated 9.10.2014 [for short 'the Brochure]. Applications for the allotment of dealership of the retail outlet were received but only two candidates were found eligible, namely, the petitioner and respondent No.3. Their names were put in the draw of lots, held on 28.9.2016, in which the petitioner was successful. Thereafter on 3.10.2016, respondent No.3 made a complaint to the Corporation, in terms of Clause 17 of the Brochure, alleging that the petitioner is not the owner of the land offered for retail outlet as she had already leased out the land in favour of two persons, namely, Umed son of Gulab Singh and Surjit Singh son of Nafe Singh, who happened to be her cousins. The said complaint was enquired into by the Corporation, taking into consideration the averments made therein and the material supplied to it with the complaint. After verification, the Corporation came to the conclusion that the petitioner has made false averments in the application form to the effect that she is the owner of the land, offered by her and made it available for a period of 30 years. Thus, in view of Clause 21 of the Brochure which deals with the 'False Information' and also in view of the declaration made by the petitioner in the application form, her application was rejected on the ground of supplying incorrect or false facts in the application. The petitioner was accordingly informed vide letter dated 15.2.2017 (Annexure P-12) about the cancellation of her allotment. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the Corporation to provide her an opportunity of hearing. Her husband was called telephonically to appear before the Corporation in support of the representation made and on 5.4.2017. The petitioner was advised to present the documents of the land offered by her so that the 2 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 -3- application can be verified once more to ascertain her claim. The letter dated 5.4.2017 was followed by another letter dated 18.4.2017 as a reminder. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 20.4.2017, received by the Corporation on 26.4.2017 along with the documents. After perusing the documents, the Corporation again passed the order on 28.4.2017 maintaining the decision dated 15.2.2017. Aggrieved against the cancellation of the allotment, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and her mother-in-law, namely, Leelawati had purchased the land measuring 8 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Khewat No.109 Min. Khata No.152/1, Rect. No.2, Killa No.22/1 (1-15), 22/2 (6-14), situated at Village Aftabgarh, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, by way of two registered sale deeds dated 1.1.2013, to the extent of 4 Kanal 4 ½ Marla each. The land was not partitioned. On 11.1.2013 mutation No. 1014 of the sale was sanctioned. On 21.1.2013, the petitioner had executed two registered lease deeds Nos.3018 and 3019 of 2 Kanal 2¼ Marla each in favour of Umed Singh and Surjit Singh, respectively, for a period 15 years at `5000/- per month for the purpose of offering the said land to setup a Gas Agency. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid registered lease deeds were cancelled by way of mutual agreement (Ikrarnama) on 22.1.2013 because it was found by the lessees that the land was not suitable because of 11 KV RDS Aftabgarh line passing over the land and thus the possession was returned to the petitioner, who further refunded the amount of lease taken from them. It was agreed not to deposit the mutation fee as well. On 10.7.2015, mutation Nos. 1105 3 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 -4- & 1106, which were sanctioned in respect of registered lease deed Nos.3018 & 3019, were cancelled because of the non-deposit of the mutation fee. It is further submitted that the respondents had passed the order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner much less her selection for the allotment of dealership vide impugned order dated 15.2.2017 without giving any opportunity of hearing and copy of the complaint or the documents attached with the complaint. It is also submitted that the enquiry on the complaint was conducted at the back of the petitioner, which is a violation of the principle of natural justice, which provides that 'no one shall be condemned unheard''. The petitioner had though made a representation and had also, on the asking of the Corporation, tendered requisite documents to convince the Corporation that the complaint was false but still the Corporation had passed the impugned order dated 28.4.2017 (Annexure P-25) maintaining the impugned order dated 15.2.2017 (Annexure P-12). It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that there is a fraud played with the petitioner as one Adish Aggarwal, Advocate from Safidon had applied for certified copies of the lease deeds No.3018 and 3019 dated 21.1.2013, which were issued to him on the same day without obtaining her permission. The said Adish Aggarwal is the brother of Gaurav Aggarwal, who had leased out his land to respondent No.3 for setting up his retail outlet. It is also submitted that on the basis of the registered lease deed mutation Nos.1136 and 1137 were sanctioned on 1.7.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner had sought the cancellation of registered lease deed vide cancellation deeds No. 932 & 919 dated 8.7.2016. After the registered lease deeds were cancelled, its mutation Nos.1139 & 1140 were sanctioned on 13.7.2016. It is also 4 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 -5- submitted that the petitioner had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [for short 'the RTI'] as to where he had deposited the fee for the purpose of seeking mutation of the registered lease deed and came to know that the fee was deposited by the Patwari. In this regard, reference is made to the information derived by the petitioner under the RTI, which is attached as Annexure P-32 with the replication. He has referred to para 5 of the information supplied to her, to buttress his arguments, in which it is provided that "the mutations have been entered by the Halqa Patwari solely on the basis of the certified copies dated 17.6.2016 of the deed Nos.3018, 3019 dated 21.1.2013". He has also referred to para 7 of the information supplied in which it is provided that "in reference to rejection of Mutation Nos.1105, 1106, no mutation fee was deposited. The fee for mutation Nos.1136, 1137 has been deposited in the treasury vide Challan No.1113 dated 31.8.2016".
At this stage, in order to challenge the averments made by the petitioner in the petition, respondent No.3 has also referred to the information supplied to him by the State Public Information Officer and Tehsildar, Safidon dated 10.7.2017 in which he has mentioned in para No.4 that "the fees of mutation of `200+200=400/- in respect of Mutation Nos.1136 and 1137 decided on 4.7.2016, has been paid by applicant Umed Singh son of Gulab Singh and Surjit Singh son of Nafe Singh".
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before the decision is taken by the Corporation on the basis of the complaint filed by the unsuccessful 5 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 -6- candidate/respondent No.3. It is further submitted that in any case, the petitioner was a successful candidate in the draw of lots and expectations were there for allotment of the distributorship to her which has been denied on the basis of the complaint in which she was not associated. He has further submitted that in the matter of contract, principle of natural justice cannot be ignored and has relied upon the following decisions:-
"1. M/s Allied Motores Ltd. Vs. M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2012(2) SCC 1.
2. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and others, 1979(3) SCC 489.
3. Chamoli District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. through its Secretary/Mahaprandhak & another Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, 2017(1) SCC (L&S) 378.
4. Brij Bihari Singh Vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation and others, 2015(5) Law Herald (SC) 3818.
5. Division Bench Judgment of this High Court in CWP No.15961 of 1997 decided on 10.12.1997.
6. M/s Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal, 2011 AIR (Madras) 66.
7. P.M.C. Kunhiraman Nair Vs. C.R. Naganatha Iyer, 1993 AIR (SC) 307."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is the victim of fraud having been played by Adish Aggarwal, Advocate of Safidon, who had obtained certified copies of the lease deeds 6 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 -7- No.3018 & 3019 without her permission because he has no concern either with the land in question or with the allotment of the retail outlet. Perhaps he has acted on behalf of his brother Gaurav Aggarwal, who has leased out his land to respondent No.3 to set up the retail outlet. He has further submitted that the lessors, namely, Umed and Surjit, who happened to be the cousins of the petitioner had surrendered their lease hold rights by way of agreement/ikrarnama executed on 22.1.2013 and before the last date of submission of the application, therefore, the rights of the property in dispute were re-vested with the petitioner, who had rightly filed the application in which she had averred that she is the owner of the land in question which is made available to the Corporation for a period of 30 years. It is also submitted that though the lease deeds were executed by registered documents because it was for a period of 15 years but for the purpose of surrendering the rights in the lease by way of mutual consent, the registration of the documents is not necessary. In this regard he has relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of "Indian Craft Village Trust and another Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others" 2007 RCR (Civil) 582. It is further submitted by him that though Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 [for short 'the Act of 1908'] provides that in case of execution of non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to or in immovable property, the said document required registration but there is an exception to Section 17(1)(b) of the Act of 1908 which provides that clauses 7 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 -8- 17(b) and (c) of sub-section (1) would not apply to any composition-deed. He further submits that the agreement/Ikrarnama dated 22.1.2013 was actually an agreement on the basis of compromise between the parties, therefore, it would fall within the definition of Composition-deed and was not required to be registered in terms of Section 17(2)(i) of the Act of 1908. It is further submitted that there is a difference between 'Sale' and 'Lease'. 'Sale' is defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [for short 'the Act of 1882'] whereas 'Lease' is defined under Section 105 of the Act of 1882. It is further submitted that in case of sale, the ownership rights are transferred to the other party whereas in the case of lease only possession is transferred and the ownership rights are retained by the owner. He further submits that if the sale is executed or is an act of fraud, it cannot be set aside by executing any deed rather it can be set aside only in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [for short 'the Act of 1963'] or by way of filing a civil suit in the Court and also by way of re-conveyance of the title by executing conveyance deed thereafter. It is further submitted that if the document dated 22.1.2013 is considered to be genuine then the respondents have committed a grave error in passing the order of cancellation.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has submitted that the allotment of dealership is strictly governed by the provisions of the Brochure. The petitioner falls in Group-1 of Clause (vi) which deals with the property offered by the applicant being the owner. It is further submitted that Group-2 deals with the property which is offered by the applicant as a lessee. He has further submitted that being successful in the draw of lots does not clothe the applicant with the 8 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 -9- right to seek allotment because till that time only the documents supplied by the applicant are to be seen and not its genuineness. It is submitted that the original documents are called from the applicant in terms of Clause 15 of the Brochure for the purpose of Field Verification of Credentials [FVC]. Clause 15 of the Brochure read as under:-
"PROCEDURE FOR FIELD
VERIFICATION OF CREDENTIALS
(FVC)
The Field Verification will be carried out for the selected candidate in respect of details provided in the application form. The objective of the FVC is to verify the correctness of the details given by the candidate in the application. The candidate would be required to produce all original documents, copies of which have been attached with the application form for verification."
He has further submitted that the Brochure also provides an inbuilt mechanism of redressal of grievance by way of a compliant. Clause 17 of the Brochure, which deals with the said aspect, is reproduced as under:-
"17. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEM Any complaint should be accompanied by a fee of Rs.1000/- , only in the form of demand 9 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 10 - draft of schedule bank, in favour of the Oil Company. Any complaint received without this fee will not be entertained. The complaint received against the selection including eligibility will be disposed off as under:-
(i) Complaints received before or after draw of lots/bidding process along with requisite fee of Rs.1000/-, will be kept in record and investigation carried out after 30 days of Draw of Lots /bidding process only in following cases: -
• General complaints with
verifiable facts
• Complaints against selected
candidate
(ii) Any complaint received after 30 days
from the date of draw of lots /bidding
process will not be entertained.
(iii) Anonymous complaints without
verifiable facts will not be investigated.
(iv) On receipt of a complaint, the
complainant would be asked to submit
details of allegation with a view to prima
facie substantiate the allegations along with 10 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 11 - supporting documents, if any. While seeking documents and details, the complainant will be advised that if during the investigations, complaint is found to be false and/or without substance, the Corporation reserves the right to take action against the complainant as provided under the law and fee forfeited.
(v) In case a complaint is received against an applicant, who has not been selected in draw of lots/bidding process, the same will be kept in abeyance. In case the LOI against selected candidate is cancelled and the applicant against whom the complaint was received gets selected in the next draw or on account of bidding process, the complaint will only then be investigated.
(vi) If the complaint is not required to be investigated the fee received will be refunded to the complainant informing that the complaint has not been investigated since the candidate against whom the complaint has been made has not been selected. The fee will be refunded after issuance of LOA to the selected candidate.
11 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 12 -
(vii) Corporation will examine response of the complainant and if it is found that the complaint does not have specific and verifiable allegations, the same will be filed and complaint fee will be forfeited.
(viii) If a decision is taken to investigate the complaint, decision on the complaint will be taken as under and intimated to the complainant:-
a) Complaints not substantiated:
In case the complaint is not
substantiated it will be filed and
complaint fee will be forfeited.
b) Established Complaints:
In case of established complaint,
suitable action would be taken and
complaint fee collected will be
refunded."
He further referred to Clause 21 of the Brochure, which deals with the 'False Information' and the result therefor. Clause 21 of the Brochure is reproduced as under: -
"21. FALSE INFORMATION If any statement made in the application or in the documents enclosed therewith or subsequently 12 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 13 - submitted in pursuance of the application by the candidate at any stage is found to have been suppressed / misrepresented / incorrect or false, then the application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the dealership is liable to be terminated. In such cases the candidate / dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against the respective Oil Company."
He has also referred to the contents of the application filed by the petitioner especially in respect of Clause 9(b) of the Application Form, which read as under: -
"The above piece of plot owned by me/my family member (as defined under multiple dealership norm) either by way of ownership/long term lease would be made available for a period of minimum 30 years as advertised by the Oil Company (Name of the Oil Company)."
13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 14 - He has also referred to Clause 9(d) of the Application Form, which read as under: -
"The said piece of land has been offered for purchase/long lease/sub- lease to the Oil Company for a period of minimum 30 years as required by the Oil Company (Name of the Oil Company) and as per their terms and condition. (For location advertised under Corporation Owned Dealer Operated/CFS sites/Company leased sites)"
He has further referred to the undertaking given by the petitioner. The relevant paras of the undertaking given by the petitioner in para No.11 of the Application Form is as under: -
a. I am aware that eligibility for Retail Outlet Dealership will be decided based on the information given in the application above. On verification by the Oil Company if it is found that the information given by me is incorrect/false/misrepresented then my candidature will stand cancelled and I will be declared ineligible for the Retail Outlet Dealership.
14 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 15 - b. I also confirm that I am in possession of the supporting documents in original in respect of the information given by me in this application and if selected, failure to present these documents in original will result in cancellation of selection due to submission of false/unsupported information in this application.
c. I am fully aware that if I am unable to provide suitable site mentioned above for setting up of the retail Outlet as per the Oil Company's standard layout, then the allotment of dealership made to me will be cancelled.
d. I am also aware that in the event of my inability to arrange the funds required for development of requisite infrastructure and facilities as specified by the Oil Company (Name of the Oil Company) in the advertisement, the allotment can be withdrawn and I will have no claim/damages whatsoever against the 15 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 16 - Oil Company (Name of the Oil Company) m. I am also aware that the same land cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular RO location against the same advertisement. In case it is found that the same piece of land as offered by me has been offered by other applicant(s) for this location then my candidature for RO dealership will be rejected."
Learned counsel for the Corporation has further submitted that much depends upon the genuineness of the document dated 22.1.2013 by which the registered lease deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of Umed s/o Gulab Singh and Surjeet s/o Nafe Singh were cancelled and she regained the possession of the land in question for the purpose of offering the same to the Corporation for a period of 30 years. In this regard, it is submitted that the said document dated 22.1.2013 is a fabricated document and has referred to the documents attached with the petition as Annexure P- 18 and P-19 executed as deed of cancellation of the lease deed on 4.7.2016 by Umed and Surjit Singh separately. It is submitted that in the document Annexure P-5, it is averred that both the lessors are not interested in the land because of the presence of 11 KV RDS Aftabgarh Line crossing over the land and that the land in question is not suitable for the required project but 16 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 17 - in the documents attached with the petition as Annexure P-18 and P-19, executed as deeds of cancellation, it is averred by them that they could not make arrangement of the lease amount because the gas agency was not allotted to them and therefore, they do not want to kept the possession of the land. It is also submitted that as per the tone and tenor of Annexure P18 & P-19, it is clear that they were in possession even on that date when the deeds of cancellation were executed and had not returned the possession to the petitioner on 22.1.2013.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also joined the counsel for the Corporation to contend that had there been a document executed between the lessors and lessee on 22.1.2013 then it would have had a reference at least in the documents dated 4.7.2016 (Annexure P-18 & P-19). It is submitted that the mere fact that there is no reference of the said document dated 22.1.2013 in the documents dated 4.7.2016 creates a serious doubt about the execution of document dated 22.1.2013 about which they have empathetically submitted that it is a forged document, which has been created by the petitioner along with her cousins, in order to wriggle out of the rigours of the provisions of having the possession of land for a period of 30 years. Insofar as the arguments of the petitioner is concerned that the impugned order has been passed without adverting to the principle of natural justice, it is submitted that the Corporation has acted in consonance with the provisions of the Brochure in which Clause 17 provides the mechanism for dealing with the complaint filed against the selected candidate. It is further submitted that if the petitioner was aggrieved against the mechanism adopted by the respondent/Corporation, which is in terms of Clause 17 of the 17 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 18 - Brochure, she should have challenged the validity of the provision contained in the Brochure itself in this petition as well but in the absence of any challenge to such provision, she has accepted the provision but has relied upon the judgments which are altogether on different facts. It is further submitted by him that after the complaint was received, it was not accepted as it is but verification was made at the instance of the Corporation in regard to the documents appended by the petitioner and with the complaint and during the verification it was found that the petitioner had herself executed two registered lease deeds in favour of her cousins who also wanted to get the dealership of Gas Agency from some Oil Company. It is also submitted that the FVC was not conducted in this case because prior thereto, the complaint was received within time from respondent No.3 on the basis of which after enquiry it was found that the petitioner had lost possession of the land in question after executing the registered lease deeds in favour of her cousins Umed and Surjeet Singh, whom she wanted to apply for the dealership of the Gas Agency and for the purpose of obtaining the dealership of Gas Agency it is also one of the conditions that the applicant should have the land by way of ownership or on lease for a period of 15 years. It is further submitted that the petitioner had rather played fraud with the Corporation as she had made the averments in the application without disclosing that she has lost the possession of the property in question by making the lease deeds in favour of her cousins and the document Annexure P-5 is just prepared which is otherwise required to be registered. In support of his submission that the cancellation deeds are required to be registered, he has referred to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in "Chandrakant 18 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 19 - Shankarrao Machale Vs. Parubai Bhairu Mohite (D) through LRs." 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 403, "S. Saktivel (dead) by Lrs Vs. M. Venugopal Pillai"
2000(4) RCR (Civil) 93, "Puran Singh Sahni Vs. Smt. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani Kripalani"" 1991(2) SCC 180 & "Thakur Kishan Singh (dead) Vs. Arvind lani Kumar" 1995 AIR (SC) 73, decisions rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in "Dalip Singh others Vs. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh and others" 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 274 & "Jatinder Kumar Vs. Harmohinder Singh" 1993(2) RCR (Rent) 47, decisions rendered by the Madras High Court in "M/s Latif Estate Line India Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal" 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 531 & "B. Ahmed Maracair Vs. Muthuvalliappa Chettiar" 1961 AIR (Madras) 28, decision rendered by the Mysore High Court in "Nadig Neelakanta Rao Vs. State of Mysore and others" 1960 AIR (Mysore) 87, decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court in "H.S. Ram Singh Vs. Bijoy Singh Surana and another" 1972 AIR (Calcutta) 190 and a decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in "Narottamdas Narottamdas Lallubhai Patel Vs. Bai Dhanlaxmi" 1926 Bombay 573.
It is further submitted that had the cancellation by way of registered deed was not necessary then there was no need to get them cancelled by way of registered deeds on 4.7.2016. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not denied the execution of the documents Annexure P-18 & P-19 and has also not given any reference of document Annexure P-5 in the said documents. He has further submitted that the man may tell lies but the documents will not and perhaps this fact was not in the notice of petitioner when the documents Annexure P-18 & P-19 were executed by her along with the lessors Umed and Surjit Singh.
19 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 20 - I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
The selection of the petitioner has been cancelled, by the impugned order dated 15.2.2017, on the ground that it has been found during the enquiry on a complaint that she was not having land at the time of submission of application though she had applied in Group-1 (owner). The entire case hinges upon the determination of genuineness of Ikrarnama (mutual agreement dated 22.1.2013) by which two lease deeds purported to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of her cousins Umed son of Gulab Singh and Surjeet Singh son of Nafe Singh dated 16.1.2013, registered vide deed Nos.3018 & 3019 on 21.1.2013 before Sub Registrar, Safidon were cancelled by mutual consent because thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner had submitted the application for allotment of the dealership of the retail outlet along with the documents of ownership of the land about which the Corporation has opined that the petitioner was not the owner at the time when she submitted the application form and has violated the mandatory criteria/conditions. The genuineness of the agreement dated 22.1.2013 depends upon the cancellation deed dated 4.7.2016 which was executed both by Umed son of Gulab Singh and Surjeet Singh son of Nafe Singh to whom the petitioner had given the land in question on 15 years lease in equal shares by way of sale deeds dated 16.1.2013 registered on 21.1.2013 vide deeds No.3108 & 3109. The agreement dated 22.1.2013 is apparently ante dated because the reason for cancellation in the said agreement has been given by the lease holders, namely, Umed son of Gulab Singh and Surjeet Singh son of Nafe Singh,, who happened to be the cousins 20 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 21 - of the petitioner, is that the land taken by them on lease from the petitioner for the purposes of offering for the gas agency was ultimately not found suitable for the project because there was 11 KV RDS Aftabgarh Line crossing over the land whereas in the cancellation deed dated 4.7.2016 of the lease deeds dated 16.11.2013 registered on 21.1.2013, executed by the same lessors namely, Umed son of Gulab Singh and Surjeet Singh son of Nafe Singh, the reason for cancellation has been mentioned that they could not make arrangement of the lease amount because the gas agency was not allotted to them and they do not want to keep the possession of the land in future. Not only that the reason given in the agreement dated 22.1.2013 which is purported to have been executed between the parties much before the last date of submission of the application, by the petitioner, who has allegedly regained the possession of the land which was offered to set up the retail outlet, is altogether different with the reasons given in the cancellation deed dated 4.7.2016 of the same lease deed which was registered on 21.1.2013 but also there is no reference at all of the agreement dated 22.1.2013 in the deed of cancellation dated 4.7.2016. It is a matter of common sense that had the agreement dated 22.1.2013 been in existence on 4.7.2016 when the deed of cancellation was executed by the lessors in favour of the lessee (petitioner) it would have definitely been made a part of the said deed of cancellation deed dated 4.7.2016 but the very fact that there is not even a whisper about what had transpired between the parties allegedly on 22.1.2013 in the document dated 4.7.2016 proves, without any shadow of doubt, that the agreement dated 22.1.2013 is a forged and fabricated document which has been created to wriggle out of the situation 21 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 ::: CWP No.13167 of 2017 - 22 - in which the petitioner has been put because of the execution of the lease deeds in favour of her cousins on 16.1.2013 and got it registered on 21.3.2013 so that her cousins may be in a position to apply for the allotment of gas agency offered by the same Corporation and when the cousins of the petitioner found that they have not been successful in obtaining the gas agency, they decided to return the lease land to the petitioner by way of cancellation deed dated 4.7.2016. Since the agreement dated 22.1.2013 was not in existence at that time, therefore, there was no reason either for the petitioner or her cousins to make a reference of the said agreement between the parties in the cancellation deed.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order as the petitioner herself is to be blamed for over reaching the Corporation by creating false and fabricated documents. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
17.0
17.04
.04.2018 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
22 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 06:20:51 :::