Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. PW­3 Sh. Vinay Kumar Bhagat proved his statement Ex.PW3/A as recorded on 11.12.2009 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (Crl.) No. 1747/2009. He testified that the extension period for construction of property in question was from 01.04.2003 to 03.06.2003. Site plan application dated 22.05.2003 and the plan was sanctioned on 12.06.2003 which was valid upto 11.06.2005 and the construction was completed upto March' 2005. He produced certified Copy of his Voter I Card and passport proved as Ex.PW3/B (Colly) and certified copy of his Enrolment Certificate with Bar Council of Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 Punjab & Haryana proved as Ex.PW3/C. This witness was extensively cross examined on behalf of both the accused persons wherein he stated that he did his LLB from Delhi University in the year 1974. The property in question was applied by him with DDA in the year 1981. He denied the suggestion that DDA Slip Mark A bearing No.09460, dated 31.03.1981 in respect of deposit of Rs.5,000/­ for Rohini MIG Scheme was not for a plot. He admitted that original of DDA Slip bearing No.09460, dated 31.03.1981 was not in his record. However, he volunteered that at the time of payment, same was got adjusted and original was submitted with DDA. He did not know from which Bank or Account Number, he had made the payment of Rs.5,000/­ to DDA. He denied the suggestion that he was not having any solid proof regarding disbursement of Rs.5,000/­ to DDA by him. He admitted that he had no proof in his record regarding the disbursement of initial amount to the DDA. He denied the suggestion that he had not paid initial amount to DDA. He further denied the suggestion that his name was Vinay Kumar in his school record. However, he stated that his name was Vinay Kumar Bhagat in his school record. He admitted that his name mentioned in Certificate of Enrollment issued by Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana was Vinay Kumar and there was no mention of his surname Bhagat. He further admitted that his name mentioned in Voter I­card, issued on 11.10.1984 was Vinay Kumar and there was also no mention of his surname Bhagat and the address mentioned therein was H. No. 691, Ward No.19, Sonepat, District Sonepat. However, he volunteered that his Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 name mentioned in his PAN Card, Passport and I­Card issued by District Bar Association was Vinay Kumar Bhagat. He duly marked copy of his PAN Card as Mark B and copy of his I­Card issued by District Bar Association, Sonepat as Mark C. His passport carried the date of issue as 28.01.2010. However, he volunteered that he had got renewed passport thrice, firstly issued from Chandigarh Regional Office, then Delhi Office, wherein his name, middle name and surname were as it is in this very passport. All the expired three passports were in his possession however he did not produce the same before the Court. He admitted that there was no mention of date of issuance, in his I­ Card issued by District Bar Association, Sonepat. He denied the suggestion that at the relevant time, he did not have means in his possession at the time of applying DDA Plot. However, he volunteered that he had income certificate dated 27.03.81 bearing no. 308/SSD issued by SDO Sonepat, Ex.PW­1/DA. He denied the suggestion that his parentage and address was not mentioned on Ex.PW­1/DA . He further denied the suggestion that he did not have any proof of his residence at 12 B, Jeevan Nagar, Sonepat when he had applied for DDA Plot. He admitted that there was no bank transaction of making the payment to the DDA through Cheque. However, he volunteered that there was bank challan Ex. PW1/DC1 and Ex. PW1/DC2, through which the cash was deposited. He also produced the certificate dated 21.03.2012 issued under the signature of Senior Manager, PNB City Branch, Sonepat. He also brought the letter dated 19.03.2012 issued by Senior Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank, New Krishna Nagar Branch, wherein it is mentioned that the relevant records Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 pertaining to the year 1994 in respect to his savings bank Account had already been destroyed. He proved the said documents as Ex.PW3/DC3 and Ex.PW3/DC4 respectively. He admitted that he was assessed to Income Tax for the last about 12/13 years. He had not shown his property no. 171, Pocket 17, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi ­85 in his Income Tax Returns for the relevant years, however he volunteered that he did not do so as the said property was alloted to him in the year 1991. He did not show the said property even in his ITR for the subsequent period when he got assessed to income tax for the first time. He admitted that he never employed both the accused persons as caretaker in the said property at any point of time. He also admitted that both the accused were tresspassers in his said property. He could not disclose the name of person to whom the work of construction in his said property was awarded as the said work was awarded by Sh. Rajbir Saini, JE, DDA, on his behalf. The building material used to be purchased by the contractor himself but he could not tell the name of the building material supplier. He denied the suggestion that he had awarded the contract for construction of the said property to Sh. Rajbir Saini. He did not know as to whether or not Sh. Rajbir Saini had kept both the accused as caretaker in the said property. He denied the suggestion that he never personally visited the said property from the date of commencement of construction therein till the filing of Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He had personally visited the said property more than 20 times during 2003­2005 but he could not visit the property after the year 2005. He admitted that accused Sunder Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 Lal had been working as Mason during construction of his said property but he had no knowledge as to whether other accused namely Rani was also working as Mason therein during the relevant period or not. He did not know as to whether both the accused alone had been involved in the construction of the said property or not. He denied the suggestion that he could not tell the name of building contractor and had also not shown the said property in his ITR and had also not produced the relevant passbooks for showing the relevant bank entries as he was not Vinay Kumar Bhagat. He produced his original degree of Law Graduation from University of Delhi, Certificate dated 06.11.1978 issued by Ministry of Industries and Civil Supplies in respect of Prospective Enterprenuour, original identity card issued by District Bar Association, Sonepat bearing his photograph and PAN card issued by Income Tax Department also bearing his photograph thereupon and proved the photocopies of said documents as Ex.PW3/DC5 to Ex.PW3/DC8. He incurred a sum of Rs. 4 Lacs/Rs.5 Lacs in the construction of his said property. He did not have the relevant records regarding withdrawal of the said amount for the construction of the said property. Sh. Rajbir Saini came to his contact in the year 2002­2003. He stated that Sh. Rajbir Saini never claimed himself to be the contractor. He came to know for the first time in April, 2008 that the accused had tresspassed into his aforesaid property. At that time, he made oral request to both of them for vacating the property and they verbally sought one/two month's time to vacate the same by citing their difficulty on account of marriage of their daughter. He had verbally requested Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 them three times to vacate the said property. He alongwith other residents and office bearers of RWA concerned which were 10/12 in number, had visited the accused for requesting them to vacate the said property. No Bar members from Sonepat accompanied him for the said purpose. Accused Sunder Lal recognized him as owner of the said property during those visits in the presence of Mr. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Goel, who was the President of RWA, at that time. He denied the suggestion that one person namely Dharamvir Khatri had also accompanied him during aforesaid visits to the accused. He had lodged complaint at one police station and the police authority had assured him to take appropriate action into the matter, however he did not file any civil suit for possession. He admitted that he had lodged the complaint at PS Begumpur, situated at Sector 24 Rohini, Delhi. He did not remember the contents of his statement which was recorded by the police at that time. Inspector C.L. Meena was the SHO of PS Begumpur. He denied the suggestion that he alongwith 10/12 persons tried to forcibly take possession of the aforesaid property on 31.10.2009. He, however admitted that he was called at the PS Begumpur once but he could tell whether it was on 01.11.2009 or not. He denied the suggestion that Inspector C.L. Meena had called upon him to produce necessary document regarding proof of disbursement of amount to the DDA in respect of the said property or that he was called upon to produce Sh. Rajbir Saini in the PS at that time and thus, there was no occasion for him in not producing Sh. Rajbir Saini or that he could not produce any such document or that the accused had to file the Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He volunteered that no such documents were asked from him. He denied the suggestion that he had not been able to produce any proof regarding disbursement of amount or that he had kept the accused as Masons for the construction of the said property or that in some of the documents, his name has been mentioned as Mr. Vinay alone. However, he admitted that in some of the documents, his name has been mentioned as Vinay Kumar or Vinay Bhagat. He volunteered that sometimes, he did not use his middle name and sometimes he did not use his last surname i.e. Bhagat. He has been showing his name as Vinay Bhagat in his ITR. Upto B.Sc. Leval, he had been using his name as Vinay Kumar and not his Surname but after completing his B.Sc. Degree course, he also started using his complete name by mentioning Vinay Kumar Bhagat. He was around 29/30 years old when he had applied for said property with DDA. He denied the suggestion that the age of the person who had applied for the allotment of the said property was 37 years.

12. DW­2 Sh. Rajbir Saini deposed that he knew the person namely Sh. Vinay Bhagat who was resident of Sonepat (Haryana). He was aware that Sh. Vinay Bhagat was allotted plot no. 171, Pocket­17, Sector­24, Rohini, Delhi by Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 DDA. There was no contract for raising construction on the said plot, between him and Sh. Vinay Bhagat. He volunteered that he used to go to the said plot for the purpose of supervision at the time of construction. He also knew Sh. Sanjay as he was raising construction in the said property. On the request of Sh Vinay Bhagat, he had got engaged Sh. Sanjay for raising construction in the said property. Although, he used to visit the site for the purpose of supervision but the construction was not completed by the time when he stopped going there. The super structure up to two story had already been erected by that time. No finishing work was done in the said property till that time. After receiving the payment from Sh Vinay Bhagat, he used to pay the amount to said Sh. Sanjay on behalf of Sh Vinay Bhagat. He did not remember the exact date, month and year when he lastly visited the said site. However, it was about 10­12 years ago. Sh Sanjay did not hand over key of the said property to him after completion of construction. He knew Sunder Lal as he was working as Chowkidar at the time of raising construction in the said property during the relevant period. However, he did not knew the lady present in the Court.

21. PW­3 produced certified copy of his Voter I Card and Passport(Ex PW3/B Colly.), certified copy his Enrollment Certificate with Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana(PW3/C), copy of his Ration Card(Ex PW3/DB) showing his residential address as 12­B, Jiwan Nagar, Sonepat, bank challans(Ex PW3/DC1 and Ex PW3/DC2) regarding payment made in cash with the Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 DDA against property in person, photocopies of his degree of law graduation, copy of certificate dt. 06.11.78 purportedly issued by Ministry of Industries and Civil Supplies, copy of I card issued by District Bar Association, Sonepat bearing his photograph and copy of PAN Card also bearing his photograph (Ex PW3/DC5) to Ex PW3/DC8) during his statement recorded before the Court.
23. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that PW3 namely Sh. Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Bhagat produced photocopy of Voter I Card issued in the name of Vinay Kumar S/o Sh Jai Chand as well as the photocopy of his passport issued in the name of Vinay Kumar Bhagat which are proved as Ex PW3/B colly during his statement. The officer of DDA, who has been examined from the side of accused persons as DW3, also produced copy of perpetual lease deed in respect of property in question in favour of Sh. Vinay Bhagat S/o Sh Jai Chand and Smt. Meenu Bhagat W/o Sh. Vinay Bhagat which has been proved as DW3/PA. All the said three documents bear the photograph of said Sh. Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Bhagat @ Vinay Kumar Bhagat. The comparison of the photographs appearing on all the said three documents clearly reveals that they are of one and the same person. In fact, this fact has also been admitted by DW3 during his cross examination when he was confronted with the photograph appearing on copy of Election I Card issued in the name of Sh Vinay Kumar and the photograph appearing on the lease deed available in the record of DDA. Not only this, the photograph of Case No.4/1: PS Tilak Marg : U/s 195 IPC DOD: 30.10.2013 PW3 as appearing on I­Card issued by District Bar Association, Sonepat as well as on copy of PAN Card Ex PW3/DC7 and PW3/DC8 is also similar to that of his photograph appearing on copy of lease deed Ex DW3/PA. Thus, there is no scope of any doubt that the property in question had been allotted to PW3 namely Sh. Vinay Kumar Bhagat and his wife as per record of DDA.