Sharmila Jain v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

3. The petitioner is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for issuance of an appropriate writ or directions for setting aside the cancellation of Sub-Lease, as well as Conveyance Deed dated 28.10.2014 based on the impugned cancellation letter dated 01.01.2021.

4. Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel for the respondent is present on advance notice.

5. It is not disputed that the petitioner had applied for conversion of Plot No. 65, Vardhaman Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Arihant Nagar, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, from leasehold to freehold on 04.09.2014, and on payment of the requisite charges etc., and other necessary compliance, the same was done on 20.10.2014 vide Conveyance Deed dated 28.10.2014.

6. It appears that the Managing Committee of the aforesaid society was invalidated and an Administrator was appointed w.e.f. 21.01.2015. The petitioner was then served with the Show Cause Notice on 01.10.2015 for allegedly filing fabricated documents for execution of the conveyance deed and the same was cancelled vide letter dated 02.12.2015. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 1579/2016, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2018, whereby the said cancellation letter dated 02.12.2015 was set aside, wherein the following observations were made:-

electricity bill submitted by the petitioner subsequently. The DDA is required to consider the same and decide its relevance. That is possible if the matter is remanded back to the DDA for the consideration of the electricity bill later submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated December 02, 2015 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the DDA, who shall intimate the petitioner within four weeks, the date and time for her appearance before the concerned Officer when the petitioner shall submit the electricity bill on which she wants to place reliance in support of her plea of possession of the property in question. On such submission, the respondent/DDA shall pass a speaking order within four weeks thereafter. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order in accordance with law. “

7. The petitioner again approached this Court since vide impugned letter dated 21.01.2021, the Sub-Lease and the Conveyance Deed have again been cancelled by the respondent/DDA. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 11.05.2018, a reasoned ordered was passed by the respondent/DDA dated 18.04.2019 in her favour, wherein the operative part recorded as under:- „It is also evident that she is a bonafide purchaser. Site inspection confirms that the property is in possession of Sharmila Jain and the Hon‟ble High Court held that fake electricity bill was submitted by the person engaged by her and not by her and directed for reconsideration. Since the original bill is now on record, in such circumstances the cancellation of the Conveyance Deed needs to be reconsidered with the approval of the Competent Authority and based on that decision further course of action would be taken.‟

8. However, the aforesaid speaking order dated 18.04.2019 was withdrawn vide the subsequent letter dated 15.05.2019, and thereafter, a fresh order was passed dated 13.11.2019, bringing out the following defects in the Conveyance Deed:- “a) Non submission of any documentary evidence showing that no forged/fabricated documents have been furnished and no misstatement, mis-representation or fraud committed while getting the property converted into freehold rights. Even the electricity bill submitted is found fabricated, as same was checked from the website of BSES against the CA number shown on the face of the same. In fact, the CA number is allotted to some other person namely Sh. J.S. Arora R/o 128, Arihant Nagar, Paschim Vihar. b) A sub-lease deed was executed on 20.04.1986 by DDA in favour of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain. The perusal of sub-lease deed and its comparison with the copy of sub-lease deed submitted by Smt. Sharmila Jain at the time of conversion of plot into freehold, indicates clear differences between the two and raise doubts about the genuineness of the documents. c) The lessee, Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, surrendered his membership on 31.03.1990 and the same was cancelled by the Society on 10.07. 1990 and share money refunded on 27.03.1991. d) An FIR vide DD No.36A filed on 14.04.2015 with SHO, Ashok Vihar Police Station by Ex-Secretary Sh. Subhash Jain S/o Sh. P.D. Jain of Vardhaman CGHS Ltd., confirming that the property under reference was never leased or sub-leased to anybody by him bearing his signature and no NOC was ever obtained or issued by him in respect of the said property, is still pending. e) The site inspection has revealed that only a single room with Agra stone has been constructed on the plot which is less than 33% of required built up area for freehold conversion. There was no water and sewer connection till 28.04.2015. These facts clearly indicate that Form-D was not obtained at the time of execution of Conveyance Deed. Form D dated 25.11.87submitted by Smt. Sharmila Jain appears to have been got issued in connivance with concerned DDA officials. The Building Department of DDA has not confirmed issuance of Form-D for the subjected property. In addition to the above ground, the conversion application cannot be processed on other grounds which inter alia include verification of genuineness of Form'D, Electricity Bill, Agreement to Sell and GPA executed on 03.02.1988. NOC issued by the Society, Receipt of Rs.1,40,000/- etc. submitted by the applicant, Smt. Sharmila Jain and the confirmation of status of Police complaint/FIR lodged against Smt. Sharmila Jain. The justification given for fabricated electricity bill submitted by the person engaged does not hold any ground. As per laid down law, the principal is liable for all acts committed by an Agent on behalf of the Principal. Hence, Principal can not divulge the responsibility of actions taken by the Agent. The Authority (DDA) has not proceeded with the forensic investigation of forged documents, as stated above, submitted by the applicant for getting a high value residential plot transferred/ converted into freehold in her name with the ulterior motive of earning high profits as yet. The option of getting the entire case investigated from an independent central agency like CBI is also not exercised by the Authority (DDA) till date. However, the Authority (DDA) reserves its right of getting forensic check of all documents submitted by the applicant from a central forensic lab, in the modus operandi of grabbing a high value residential plot by unfair means and thorough investigation of the entire case by CBI at any time. In the light of the aforesaid, the application of Smt. Sharmila Jain is dismissed.”

9. The petitioner made a representation dated 10.03.2021, which was rejected vide cancellation letter dated 01.01.2021.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA while seeking time to seek instructions or a detailed reply submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as she has been guilty of submitting fabricated documents with the DDA.

11. At this stage of the case, the issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires a deeper examination, since the petitioner has not been shared any documents, which are reflected in the subsequent speaking order dated 22.11.2019, and evidently she has not been afforded any opportunity for hearing after recalling of the previous order dated 18.04.2019. It needs to be examined whether the respondent/DDA is in a position to substantiate the allegations which have been levelled in the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2019, as well as the impugned cancellation letter dated 01.01.2021.

12. Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of the DDA. Let reply be filed within four weeks from today.

13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requests for an interim relief to restrain the respondent DDA from taking any coercive process. The same is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/DDA on the ground that there is no application moved.