Anshul Arora v. Union of India

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Not necessary.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary. in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner/s in the two petitions are the auction purchaser/s of Plot No.4&5, Green Park, New Delhi ad measuring 286.390 sq. mtrs. and 280.090 sq. mtrs. respectively and have paid the entire bid amount of `4.57 crores and `4,70,70,000/- respectively to the respondent no.3 DDA therefor and respondent no.3 DDA has executed Conveyance Deeds dated 30th November, 2007 in their favour and put him/them into possession of the respective plots. The present petitions were filed when the respondent no.2 Delhi Police prevented the petitioner/s from raising construction on the plots inspite of petitioner/s obtaining all permissions therefor.

2. This Court while issuing notice of the petitions, vide order dated 17th March, 2008 restrained the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioner/s of their respective plots and in the construction being raised by the petitioner/s.

3. The respondent no.3 DDA has filed a counter affidavit confirming the auction and sale of the plots to the petitioner/s and denying that it was causing any impediment in the petitioner/s raising construction.

4. The respondent no.2 Delhi Police has filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondent no.3 DDA had in 1972 allotted a plot of land ad measuring 500 sq. yds. for a Police Post in Safdarjung Community Centre, Blocks A&B on provisional payment of `52,000/- paid in full by the respondent no.2 Delhi Police to the respondent no.3 DDA in 1977; however respondent no.3 DDA failed to hand over possession of the plot to respondent no.2 Delhi Police on the ground that the said land had been utilized by the respondent no.3 DDA for its own purpose; that the respondent no.3 DDA then in the year 1977 allotted alternative site ad measuring 1011.681 sq. mtr. near Block No.B-7 for construction of a Police Post and also handed over possession of the same to the respondent no.2 Delhi Police and the balance amount due for the said land was also paid by the respondent no.2 Delhi Police to the respondent no.3 DDA in the year 1978; however the land so allotted was found to be encroached by jhuggies; that in the year 2002, respondent no.2 Delhi Police cleared the encroachments from the said plot ad measuring 1011.68 sq. mtr. and fenced the same; that while the building plans on the said plot were under preparation, it was reported that the respondent no.3 DDA had re-sold the said plot also through auctions; that subsequently it was revealed that respondent no.3 DDA had carved out several plots of about 250 sq. mtr. each out of aforesaid 1011.681 sq. mtr. of land and the plots subject matter of the present petitions are two of such plots. The respondent no.2 Delhi Police thus sought to justify its actions of stopping the petitioner/s from raising constructions, claiming such rights over the land.

5. These petitions were adjourned from time to time giving directions for respondent no.2 Delhi Police and respondent no.3 DDA to resolve their inter se disputes. I am today informed that the said disputes remain unresolved. The counsel for the petitioner/s states that under protection of the interim orders in these petitions, the construction on both plots has since been completed.

6. There were admittedly no documents of title or of delivery of possession of the land of which the two plots subject matter of these petitions form part, from respondent no.3 DDA in favour of respondent no.2 Delhi Police. The respondent no.3 DDA was admittedly entitled to the land and has now conveyed the same to the petitioner/s herein. The respondent no.2 Delhi Police is thus not found entitled to interfere in any manner with the rights created by the respondent no.3 DDA in favour of the petitioner/s. The only claim which the respondent no.2 Delhi Police can have is as of a prior allottee as claimed and which rights have not been enforced as yet.

7. I am of the view that there is no need to keep these petitions pending. The same are disposed of by allowing the same and by restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner/s of the said plots and in the petitioner/s dealing with the same and with liberty to the respondent no.2 Delhi Police to take appropriate steps to enforce its claims if any against the respondent no.3 DDA. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 15, 2011 Pp (corrected and released on 30th July, 2011).