Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.

7(i) The learned Additional Solicitor General Shri P.S. Narsimha, the learned Addl. Advocage General Mr. Rajendra Prasad and learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. S.K. Gupta have made elaborate submissions on behalf of the respondent-State as well as the JDA contending interalia that the entire litigation by way of present petition is not only barred by the principles of laches and constructive res-judicata, the same has been filed concealing material facts. According to them, both the petitioners had filed separate proceedings before the concerned authorities under the ULC Act, before this court and before the other authorities under the JDA Act, and the petitioner Ramdas had also made complaints against the petitioner Chhoturam alleging use of forged power of attorney in conspiracy with the President of a Housing Cooperative Society, however the present petition has been filed by them jointly, which suggests that some third party interest has been created in the lands in question and the present petition has been filed as a proxy litigation, which should not be entertained. The learned ASG Mr. Narsimha submitted that the span of the litigation is spread over a period of 30 years and is fractured, sporadic and without any continuity. According to him, since the vesting of land in question had taken place as back as in January, 1984 and the possession of the vacant lands out of the lands in question was taken over as per the memos dated 6.12.86, it was not open for the petitioners to seek the declaration in the year 2014 that they are the owners of the said lands, indirectly challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings under the ULC Act, which had already been concluded 30 years ago. According to him, even as per the case of the petitioners, they had come to know about the proceedings under the ULC Act as back as in September, 1991. In the appeals filed by them, the Divisional Commissioner had specifically recorded the findings while dismissing the said appeals that the possession of the lands was taken over by the competent authority on 6.12.86, however the said orders of the Divisional Commissioner have remained unchallenged by the petitioners. The petitioners also did not succeed in the writ petitions filed by them on the ground of non-applicability of ULC Act to their lands. In the said petitions also the petitioners had not challenged the proceedings of Section 10(5) and 10(6) of the ULC Act or the orders of the Divisional Commissioner. The Division Bench had also dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the learned Single Judge and the SLP filed by the petitioner Ramdas also ultimately came to be withdrawn. Therefore according to Mr. Narsimha it was not open for the petitioners to reopen the said concluded proceedings of the ULC Act in the present petition.

11. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that as transpiring from the record, both the petitioners, so far had filed separate proceedings in respect of their respective lands, before the ULC authorities, before the High Court and Supreme Court, and before the Settlement Committee. It also appears that some disputes had also arisen between the petitioners and their third brother Jutharam, inasmuch as the petitioner No.2 Ramdas and his son Shaitansingh had submitted a letter (Annex.RR/1) to the respondent-JDA requesting it to file a complaint against the petitioner No.1 Chhoturam, his brother Jutharam, one Jagdish Sharma, President of Navjivan Grih Nirman Cooperative Society and the officers of the JDA, alleging that they had forged power of attorney, in the name of the petitioner Ramdas and conspired to grab his land. The said petitioner through his advocate had also published public notices in the local dailies as transpiring from the letter Annexure-RR/2. Now, from the impugned notices (collectively annexed as Annex.12 to the petition) issued by the respondent-JDA under Section 72 of the JDA Act, it further appears that number of illegal shops have been constructed on the lands in question, and the same are being run in different names, collectively known as Roshan Market. Many marriage gardens are also being run in different names on the subject lands. It is stated in the reply to the said notices (Annex.13) filed by the shopkeepers that they had taken the said shops on rent from the present petitioners. All these shops appear to have been put up by the petitioners and let out to the third parties without obtaining any permission from the concerned authorities. Hence, from the aforesaid documents, the court is constrained to hold that this common petition filed by the petitioners is nothing but a proxy litigation, filed to protect the vested interest of some third parties in the lands in question. Having said that, let us examine the merits of the petition.