Supreme Court - Daily Orders
S. K. Bahl vs Uday Pratap Singh on 12 August, 2022
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat
1
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).7278/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-10-2018
in CONC No. 475/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
Delhi)
S.K. BAHL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UDAY PRATAP SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 14293/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 14288/2021 - MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER)
Date : 12-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.M. Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR
Ms. Kanishka Mitral, Adv.
Mr. Nirmit Bhalla, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This matter has been engaging the attention of the Court for quite some time. Orders were passed from time to time which is evident from the proceedings dated 12.07.2019, 18.11.2019 and 14.02.2020.
Thereafter, in accordance with the directions issued vide Signature Not Verified order dated 11.07.2022, the petitioner and other co-owners were Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2022.08.13 13:27:34 IST Reason: given liberty to approach Deputy Director (OSD), Delhi Development Authority (‘Deputy Director’, for short) with all relevant 2 documents and the concerned Deputy Director was directed to consider all the documents and making appropriate orders. Compliance affidavit has accordingly been filed on behalf of the respondents enclosing the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Deputy Director. After noticing the deficiency in the documents placed before him on seven counts, in the concluding part of the order he observed:
“And now therefore in view of above explained position, the joint conversion application of the petitioner Shri S.K. Bahl and others co-owners of Plot No.135, Pocket K-1, Chittranjan Park admeasuring 125 sq. yards is grossly incomplete in the want of several mandatory documents as per conversion policy of DDA. They all submitted a joint conversion application and also submitted undertaking and Indemnity bond jointly against the whole property, however, the affidavits and specimen signatures and photos as submitted by all the co-owners of the property and against particular units of the property and not against undivided share in the whole property.
It is also not possible to determine the exact number of stakeholders in the aforesaid property as one other person apart from applicants mentioned in the joint conversion application appeared in the office to stake his claim in the property. Most of the applicants are not having current physical possession of the claimed units. Further 8 persons had applied for conversion for their entire portion of the area/unit though the units they possessed, had been purchased by them through different GPAs/ATSs. Therefore, the possibility of further sale cannot be ruled out.” The present proceedings arise out of the orders passed in Contempt Jurisdiction. Considering the nature of controversy, it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain this petition any longer.3
We, therefore, dispose of this Special Leave Petition reserving rights of the petitioner and concerned co-owners to take appropriate proceedings, if so advised, against the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Deputy Director. As and when such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be disposed of purely in accordance with law and after noticing the developments that have occurred while the matter was pending consideration before the High Court and this Court. It shall also be taken into account that all the Conversion as well as Misuse Charges have already been deposited by the petitioner and/ or other co-owners.
It is also open to the petitioner(s) to make appropriate representation before the Deputy Director.
In the end, we must note what happened on the last occasion. An exception was taken to the communication sent by Mr. R.M. Sinha to Ms. Garima Prasad, learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Sinha has graciously accepted that it was a mistake on his part.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER