Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
RAMESH LAKHWANI (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Anant Chaitanya
Dutta, Ms. Alka Dwivedi and Ms. Garima Saxena, Advs.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Katyal, SC for DDA and Ms. Manika Tripathy, SC for DDA, with Mr. Sumit Chander, Mr. Gurdeep Chauhan, Ms. Kiran Chander, Mr. Vansh Kalra and Ms. Priyanka Midha, Advs.
Ms. Mehak Nakra, ASC for GNCTD with Ms. Bhavya Nakra, Mr. Mayank and Ms. Saloni, Advs.
1. The petitioners are seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings against the respondent for the alleged wilful disobedience of the directions passed by this Court contained in the order dated 18.03.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.3359/2017 titled “Ramesh Lakhwani vs. Delhi Development Authority and Anr.”
2. In a nutshell, the said writ petition came to be filed by the original petitioner, namely Shri Ramesh Lakhwani, who expired on 11.05.2017 leaving behind the present petitioners who happen to be his Class-I legal heirs, comprising of his widow and two children, i.e., a son and a daughter.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts reveal that a plot bearing No. J-221, Malviya Nagar Extension, Saket, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “subject plot”), was initially allotted to one Shri Ranjit Singh under the „South Delhi Residential Scheme‟ by the respondent/DDA, and a perpetual lease deed was executed in his favour on 20.10.1980. Thereafter, the original Petitioner, Shri Ramesh Lakhwani, acquired leasehold rights upon the subject plot through a registered Agreement to Sell dated 13.01.1980 executed by the original allottee i.e., Shri Ranjit Singh in favour of the original petitioner, and a registered General Power of Attorney dated 28.02.1980 executed in favour of the brother of the original petitioner, namely Shri Laxman Lakhwani. It is claimed that the original petitioner thereafter constructed a building on the said plot after obtaining the requisite permissions and has been in possession of the property for over four decades.
4. In the year 2012, the original petitioner applied to the respondent/DDA for the conversion of the subject plot from leasehold to freehold, and duly paid a sum of ₹2,31,488/- to the respondent/DDA as “conversion charges” for the subject plot. However, the process got stalled when the respondent/DDA, via a letter dated 06.06.2012, advised the petitioner to first seek clearance from the Land and Building Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [‘GNCTD’] citing an alleged issue with a communication received from the said department of the GNCTD, dating back to 17.02.1981. It is stated that despite multiple representations and legal notices from the petitioner, the concerned authorities failed to act, eventually leading to the filing of the main writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No.3359/2017 in which the order of which contempt is presently alleged, came to be passed. In the said writ proceedings, this court vide order dated 18.03.2021 inter alia directed the respondent/DDA to examine the original petitioner‟s application for converting the land from leasehold to freehold as the requisite charges for conversion had already been paid, and further instructed the respondent/DDA to complete the conversion process by 30.06.2021. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of the said order dated 18.03.2021 which reads as under: -
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.”
5. The petitioners‟ grievance is that despite submitting all the necessary documents and making multiple requests for compliance of the order dated 18.03.2021, including a letter dated 05.04.2021, besides several follow-up emails and personal visits to the respondent/DDA‟s office, no action has been taken by the respondent/DDA to implement this Court‟s directions.
6. It is also brought out from the record that the respondent/DDA filed an affidavit dated 12.09.2022 in the present proceedings, stating that the Land and Building Department, GNCTD, had recommended the allotment of an alternative plot to Sh. Ranjit Singh, S/o Kali Ram, on 05.02.1979. Consequently, the subject plot admeasuring 200 sq. yards was allotted, and formalities were completed, including handing over of possession on 03.04.1980 and execution of lease deed on 27.10.1980. However, on 17.02.1981, a list of 128 cases, which included the case of the allotment of the subject plot to the original allottee, was forwarded to the DDA by the Land and Building Department, GNCTD, alleging that the allotments in the said 128 cases were based on forged recommendations. Accordingly, it is stated that the DDA was instructed to withhold any action with regard to the said flagged cases and they had informed Sh. Ranjit Singh of the same on 22.06.1981. It is claimed that for the aforesaid reason, when an application for conversion of the subject plot was filed by Sh. Laxman Lakhwani on 01.03.2012, it was kept in abeyance by the respondent/DDA.
7. In rejoinder, the petitioners brought to light the fact that the respondent/DDA challenged the said order dated 18.03.2021 by filing an appeal bearing LPA No. 498/2022 before this Court, which appeal was dismissed on merits with costs vide order dated 06.01.2023. Subsequently, the respondent/DDA approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP(C) D. No. 25643/2023, which also came to be dismissed on 18.08.2023. It is highlighted that during the said proceedings, the respondent/DDA failed to disclose the pendency of W.P. (C)No. 2802/2020 or any orders passed therein, nor were the petitioners ever impleaded as a party in the aforesaid writ proceedings. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the respondent/DDA filed a modification application bearing C.M. No. 2431/2024 in the main writ petition, without disclosing the judgments passed by the Supreme Court or this Court in the matter, which application was also dismissed with costs by this Court on 23.01.2024 for attempting to suppress facts and overreach the Court. It is reiterated that all the relevant documents pertaining to the subject plot have been submitted to the respondent/DDA on multiple occasions since 2017. Lastly, it is urged that the respondent/DDA‟s repeated filing of frivolous applications and affidavits, despite failing at every level of litigation, reflects mala fide intentions on the part of the respondent/DDA. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the present contempt petition has come to be filed before this Court by the petitioners herein.
ANALYSIS & DECISION:
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. I have also perused the relevant record of the case.
9. At the outset, the respondent/DDA cannot be allowed to take shelter behind the directions passed in W.P.(C) 2802/2020 titled „Govind Saran Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.‟ vide order dated 18.03.2024. Indeed, this Court in the aforesaid case has given directions to the DDA to carry out a massive exercise inter alia with regard to the following: “(a) retrieve the properties which came to be allotted based upon forged recommendation letters; (b) intimate the concerned Sub-Registrars so that no further third party rights can be created in respect of these properties;
(c) withdraw the allotments and take possession of the properties which came to be allotted based upon forged recommendation letters.”
10. However, the aforesaid directions do not in any way eclipse or overtake the directions which have been passed in the main writ petition bearing No. 3359/2017, passed by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2021, that gives rise to the instant petition. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Single Judge while passing the directions vide order dated 18.03.2021 was alive to the fact that there were 38 files with regard to questionable allotment of land, including that of the original allottee Shri Ranjit Singh from whom the original petitioner acquired right and interest in the subject property, which were not traceable, and reference was made to DDA‟s letter dated 14.08.2014, which reads 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. ….”
11. It was, thus, found that the rationale behind the aforementioned request was that there was forgery apropos 128 cases and files of 38 cases were not traceable. However, it was specifically held that perpetual lease deed had already been executed against the petitioner way back on 20.10.1980 whereas the request letter from the Delhi Government was sent about four months later on 17.02.1981. It was specifically held that the legal right already stood accrued in favour of the original allottee Shri Ranjit Singh, which could not have been revoked or disturbed simply because the Government suspected that the allotment of land to the original allottee i.e., Shri Ranjit Singh could have been made on the basis of forged documents. It was in the teeth of the aforesaid observations that the direction was passed to the respondent/DDA to disregard the communication dated 17.02.1981 and examine the case of the petitioner for conversion of leasehold land into freehold upon payment of requisite charges.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that except for the aforesaid directions which have been passed by this Court dated 18.03.2024 in W.P. (C) 2802/2020, the position remains unchanged that 38 files including the file of the original allottee in the present matter, remain untraceable.
13. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out that the Land and Building Department, GNCTD, has apprised the DDA vide letter dated 25.01.2024 that “it does not have records of the subject property and hence it cannot confirm the genuineness of the recommendation letter”. However, at the same time it is informed that the authenticity of the recommendation letter cannot be ascertained, but it is opined that the recommendation letter seems to be forged.
14. Mr. Sanjay Katyal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/DDA, urged that the DDA on its part conducted an examination so as to verify the original documents of the subject property on 03.04.2024 and 05.04.2024 and on comparing the recommendation letter submitted by Smt. Madhumita Lakhwani w/o late Shri Ramesh Lakhwani, with the recommendation letter available with the DDA, it has been observed that there are differences between the two, for which reference was invited to the deposition in the affidavit filed by the DDA dated 24.04.2024. The said plea cannot be countenanced in law since there is no legal determination whatsoever at this stage that the recommendation letter in respect of the subject property was forged.
15. In the same vein, the plea that the officials of the respondent/DDA are not guilty of contempt in view of the subsequent events unfolding with respect of 38 missing files, consequent to the directions in W.P.(C) 2802/2020 vide order dated 18.03.2024, cannot be sustained in law either. If the plea of the respondent/DDA is accepted, that would tantamount to accepting a challenge to the legality of the initial order dated 18.03.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 3359/2017. It goes without saying that the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 was unsuccessfully assailed in LPA No. 489/2020 and finally the respondent/DDA preferred SLP (Civil) No. 25643/2023, which also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.08.2023.
16. Mr. Aneja, learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, rightly referred to the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand[1], wherein a learned Judge of Patna High Court refused to initiate action for contempt for the disobedience of the directions passed in the main matter by another learned Single Judge, on forming an opinion that the kind of orders which were passed could not have been given in the first place. The Supreme Court held as under: “While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different than what was taken in the earlier decision. If any party is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. Therefore, the order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.”
17. Further, the plea by the learned Standing counsel for the respondent DDA that their hands are tied due to directions passed in W.P.(C) 2802/2020 vide order dated 18.03.2024 also cannot be sustained, first for the simple reason that the said judgment in no way expressly or impliedly overrules the directions passed in W.P.(C) 3359/2017 dated 18.03.2021. There is no gainsaying that the directions in both cases operate independent of each other. Reference in this regard, can also be invited to the decision in the case of Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV[2] wherein it was held as under:-
order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.”
18. Before parting with this case, it would be pertinent to mention that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi[3] cited by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/DDA has no application to the present case. Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) was a case where it was held that since contempt of Courts is a serious issue, action should only be taken when there is a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, and that punishment under the law of contempt is called for only when lapse is deliberate, in disregard of duty and defiance of authority.
19. Mr. Katyal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/DDA, also relied on the decision in Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana[4] wherein it was held as under: “9….The court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied with and carried out the direction of the court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Before a contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The civil court while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional……”
20. Mr. Katyal also cited the decision in the case of Indus Towers Ltd. v. Quadrant Televentures Limited[5], wherein it has been held that if the disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances, the Court may not punish the Contemnor.
21. To reiterate, the dictum of law propounded in the aforesaid cases have no bearing in the present case since it is evident that respondent/DDA has completely misread the directions of this Court dated 18.03.2021, which was categorical to the effect that respondent/DDA was supposed to discard the letter dated 17.02.1981 issued by the Land and Building Department, GNCTD, and process the case of the petitioner for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights on payment of charges in accordance with law.
22. At the cost of repetition, this Court, in contempt jurisdiction, cannot go into the legality of the aforesaid dirsctions dated 18.03.2021. In fact, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2802/2020, has also not gone into the legality of the impugned directions as such.
23. Unhesitatingly, the concerned officials of the respondent/DDA are clearly guilty of committing wilful and deliberate disobedience of directions of this Court. The concerned officials of the Neutral Citation 2023/DHC/000837 respondent/DDA have no legal justification to deny the petitioners the benefits of directions dated 18.03.2021 in the backdrop that the conversion charges with regard to the subject plot already stood paid by the original petitioner as on 01.03.2012.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the officials of the respondent/DDA are guilty of committing contempt of the directions of this Court dated 18.03.2021. However, in order to enable the respondent/DDA to purge itself of the contempt, the officials of the respondent/DDA are granted four weeks‟ time to initiate appropriate process for conversion of leasehold rights of the petitioner into freehold rights, on payment of charges as on the date W.P.(C) 3359/2017 was filed i.e., 17.04.2017. The respondent/DDA shall bear the entire cost of purchase of stamp papers and registration charges for such conversion and registration of Conveyance Deed in favour of the petitioners.
25. The present contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
26. Let a compliance report with regard to aforesaid directions be filed within six weeks from today, failing which the officials of the respondent/DDA shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. NOVEMBER 27, 2024