Delhi High Court - Orders
Ramesh Lakhwani vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 18 March, 2021
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3359/2017
RAMESH LAKHWANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mrs. Vandna Aneja,
and Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Sharma and Mr. Mohit,
Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Siddarth Panda, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 18.03.2021
1. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of land, allotted to one Mr. Ranjit Singh on 05.02.1979. This allotment was pursuant to the latters land being acquired by the Government of NCT of Delhi for the benefit of the Delhi Development Authority („DDA‟). The 200 sq. yd. of land allotted in Malviya Nagar Extension, now called Saket, was sold by the allottee Mr. Ranjit Singh to the petitioner by way of an agreement to sell dated 13.01.1980 and a GPA in favour of Mr. Laxman Lakhwani, the petitioner‟s elder brother, dated 28.02.1980. Subsequently, a perpetual lease deed was executed by the DDA in favour of Mr. Ranjit Singh on 20.10.1980.
2. Upon completion of requisite formalities, the petitioner constructed a house and started residing therein with his family. He has done so for the past 4 decades. The property has also been mutated in his name with the Revenue and Municipal Authorities. On 29.02.2012, he sought conversion of the said land from lease- hold to free-hold. The DDA declined his request on account of a communication from the Land and Building Department, GNCTD, dated 17.02.1981, urging the DDA to keep the said allotment in abeyance.
3. With reference to the aforesaid communication, the DDA has averred in its affidavit as under:
"....
5. The Jt. Secretary (L&B), Delhi Admn. forwarded a list of 128 cases vide letter dated F. 15(210)80-L&B/7352 dated 17.02.1981 which were reported to based on the basis of forged recommendations and requested Respondent No.1 not to make any allotment or to execute lease deed and also revoke the allotment if any made. The another list of 38 cases was also enclosed by GNCTD intimating that the case files of those cases are not traceable with them and desired that no action need to be taken in the 38 cases and they must be kept in abeyance. The present case is also one of the 38 cases where L&B Deptt. desired not to take any action and to keep it in abeyance.
6. The allotte was therefore, conveyed the decision taken by the respondent vide letter dated 22.06.1981 based on the communication from L&B Department and the copy of the letter was also endorsed to Jt. Secy. L&B department in response to its letter dated 17.02.1981 that the lease of the plot had been executed and no matter was pending on the part of DDA, the case was kept in abeyance.
...."
4. The sole reason for the letter from the GNCTD to the DDA was that file of the allotment of land pertaining to Mr. Ranjit Singh was one of the 38 files, which were not traceable with the government; therefore, no action be taken apropos the said 38 cases. The learned counsel for the Land and Building Department/R-2 submits that the DDA has indeed revoked the allotment. The said contention is contrary to the DDA‟s letter dated 14.08.2014 which reads inter alia as under:
"....
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of recommendation letter No. .F. 32(21)/5/78/L&B/Alt/3410 dated 5.2.1979 issued by Under Secretary(CN), Land & Building Department, Delhi Administration in favour of Shri Ranjit Singh s/o Shri Kali Ram. The Jt. Secretary(L&B), Delhi Adm. Vide letter No.15(210)/80-L&B/7352 dated 17.2.1981 has forwarded the list of 128 cases and further 38 cases stating that these are forged and requested not to make any allotment or to execute lease deed and also revoke the allotment.
You are, therefore, requested to kindly intimate the present status of investigation carried out in these cases and verify the genuineness of the enclosed recommendation letter to enable us to take further action in the matter.
....."
5. Clearly, the DDA only states that a request has been made to not make any allotment or to execute lease deed or to revoke the allotment. The rationale for the said request was that there was forgery apropos 128 cases and the files of 38 cases were not traceable. The said request would ex facie not be applicable to the petitioner because in his case, the perpetual lease deed had already been executed way back on 20.10.1980, whereas the request letter from the Government was sent about 4 months later i.e. on 17.02.1981. A right which already stood accrued in favour of Mr. Ranjit Singh, cannot be revoked or disturbed simply because the Government suspects that the allotment to Mr. Ranjit Singh could have been on the basis of a forged document, etc. The suspicion would have to be made good on the basis of some documentation.
6. The file itself is not available with the Government, even after a lapse of 40 years. That would not deprive the original allottee/Mr. Ranjit Singh and/or his successor in interest from enjoying the property in its fullness. Neither the Government nor the DDA has taken any action for the past 40 years. Additionally, the Government has not pursued the investigation, nor has any further request been made to the DDA with respect to the said allotment to Mr. Ranjit Singh. It did not even bother to enquire from the DDA as to whether the property had already been handed over to Mr. Ranjit Singh and/or whether the perpetual lease deed has been executed in his favour.
7. A purported communication which seeks to disturb, take away or abridge rights accrued in favour of an allottee, merely on the basis of suspicion, cannot be permitted to be given effect to. Something more has to be made available so as to show that the allottee had committed a fraud or misled either the Government or the DDA. There is nothing on record to show what steps the Government took to trace the 38 missing files, or even with respect to the so- called police investigation which commenced in the year 1981. In the circumstances, the Government‟s communication, would be of no consequence apropos the allotment in favour of Mr. Ranjit Singh. There is no averment or suspicion that Mr. Ranjit Singh had misled the government or had committed a fraud. An embargo on his rights is sought only because the government has misplaced his and 37 similar allotment files. The Land and Building Department has not specified what action it took to trace-out the files; whether any Show Cause Notice was issued or Departmental action was initiated against its own officials who may have been responsible for the safe keeping of the files or whether any endeavour was made to recreate the files.
8. The learned counsel for the DDA/R-1 submits that despite issuance of a letter to the petitioner in 2012 to seek clearance from the Land and Building Department, and the aforesaid letter dated 14.08.2014 to the GNCTD apropos the present status of the investigation carried out in the aforesaid cases and to verify the genuineness of the recommendees, the Government has kept silent. Apparently, the Government has nothing to say in the matter. Therefore, its aforesaid communication dated 17.02.1981 to the DDA will be presumed to be without basis and is to be disregarded.
9. In view of the above, the DDA is directed to disregard the said communication and examine the petitioner‟s case for conversion of the lease hold land into free-hold upon payment of requisite charges.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as demanded, an amount of Rs.2,31,488/-, has already been paid to the DDA on 01.03.2012. Let the DDA intimate the petitioner if any further information or documents are required, in 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The said information or documentation shall be supplied to the DDA in 2 weeks thereafter. The DDA shall consider the petitioner‟s case and complete the process by 30.06.2021.
11.The writ petition is disposed-off in terms of the above.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J MARCH 18, 2021 AB