Delhi High Court - Orders
Kanwal Kishore Manchanda vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 13 July, 2021
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~ 24 (1)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6222/2021 & CM APPLs 19715-19716/2021
KANWAL KISHORE MANCHANDA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Pawanjit Singh Bindra with Mr
Bhuvneshwar Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Dhanesh Relan SC for DDA/R-1,
Advocate.
Mr Umesh Sharma, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 13.07.2021 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mutation of the property concerned i.e. B-87, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, was carried out by the DDA on the basis of a decree passed in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that a representation was made by R-2, a relative of the petitioner, before the DDA stating therein that the said decree was obtained by fraud. That being the position, the same could have been challenged before the appropriate Court of law. However, the DDA, on the basis of the R-2's representation, instead went ahead and cancelled the mutation with immediate effect by an order dated 23.10.2017. The DDA arrived at such conclusion on the basis of its observation that there was misrepresentation and concealment of facts, of the claims and counterclaims by the parties. The said order was impugned in WP(C) No.9091/2020 wherein by order dated 18.11.2020, the DDA was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:19.07.2021 17:03:50 directed to hear the parties afresh and pass a speaking order. The speaking order was passed on 04.03.2021, which is impugned in the present petition.
2. The DDA has maintained its previous order of 23.10.2017 - it has held that the DDA is not the forum to settle the disputes raised before it, therefore the parties may approach the competent court of law, regarding ownership of the property in question. The DDA maintained its cancellation of the mutation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that insofar as the petitioner has a decree in his favour, it was always open to the respondent or any other person claiming any right in the property to challenge the decree before the appropriate court of law. Instead, the DDA itself has sought to adjudicate on the decree and cancel the mutation.
4. Let an e-copy of this petition be supplied to the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.
5. The learned counsel for R-2 seeks some time to bring on record certain documents to show that the decree dated 07.03.1980 passed in Suit No.759/1979 has lost relevance since the same has been set aside by this Court.
6. At his request, renotify on 28.07.2021.
7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J JULY 13, 2021/rd Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:19.07.2021 17:03:50