M/S PP Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

1. This application is moved on behalf of the applicant/respondent No.2, namely L.R. Builders Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’) seeking the following reliefs:

2. Pass such further order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem feet in favor of the Applicant and against the Respondents.”

2. Learned counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners is present on advance notice. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/DDA is also present on advance notice through video conferencing.

3. Mr. Madhav Khuranna, learned counsel of for the applicant has urged that while the petitioners in paragraph (ii) of the writ petition claim themselves to be the legal occupant and rightful owners of the property bearing No. H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur District Centre, Pitamapura, Delhi-110034 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject property’), on the other hand, in the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal [“NCLT”] in CA 355/2022 titled as „P.P. Jewellers Private Limited & Anr. v. L.R. Builders & Ors.‟ they acknowledge that the applicant is the owner of the subject property. It is, however, pointed out that there is again a turnaround as in W.P. (C) 8848/2022, the petitioners take a stand that they are the owners of the subject property, with regard to which C.M. APPL. 41837/2022 has been filed for seeking action under Section 340 read with Section 190/195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Cr.P.C.”].

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further alluded to the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by this Court, wherein vide paragraph (13), submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded to the effect that they are not claiming any ownership rights in the property in question and only seek to avail an opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice, purportedly in response to the proposed demolition action against the alleged unauthorized construction in the subject property by the Delhi Development Authority [“DDA”].

5. Further, alluding to certain observations in the proceedings arising out of arbitration between Pawan Gupta and Kamal Gupta viz., ARB.P. 1010/2022, it is pointed out that the aforesaid two individuals, who are the brothers with related parties, have already created a dispute amongst themselves and seek to divide the subject property amongst themselves, and accordingly, the applicant had to intervene in the pending proceedings and observations were recorded by this Court vide paragraph (17), whereby the conduct of the petitioners was brought into the open and though it was stated by Shri Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the said proceedings that the subject property would be kept out of the dispute, the respondent No.2 was allowed to intervene in the enforcement proceedings and raise necessary pleas with regard to challenging the arbitral award insofar as it pertained to the subject property. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently urged that after a month, the petitioners have filed the present writ and they again lay a claim to be the owners of the subject property.

6. The long and short of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the petitioners have been taking contradictory stands and they are attempting to take over the subject property in an unlawful manner as if to lay claim of „adverse possession‟ over the subject property. It is pointed out that the interim order dated 24.04.2024 passed by this Court facilitated the petitioners to approach the DDA so as to show cause against the demolition order and a reasoned order has since been passed on 29.05.2024 by the DDA, rejecting the representation of the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the non-applicants/petitioners has urged that he may be allowed to file a reply. It was vehemently urged that dispute is primarily between the father and the son, who have filed multiple litigations against each other in respect of as many as 50 companies and that the present application is motivated and to harass his father and those who stand by him.

8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, first things first, a reply is called for on the application moved by the applicant. Thus, let a reply be filed within four weeks from today and in the meanwhile, since a speaking order dated 29.05.2024 has been passed by the DDA, as acknowledged by the learned counsel for the DDA, the DDA shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the alleged unauthorized construction in accordance with law. Further, the interim order restraining the DDA from carrying out any demolition process, is hereby vacated.

9. Before parting with this order, the observations in the reasoned order by the DDA dated 29.05.2024 to the effect that the matter of occupancy-cum-completion certificate could only be decided once the issue of ownership of the property is established by the NCLT, is clearly beyond the purview of the DDA and unfathomable in law and the dispute as to the ownership in the subject property cannot be decided by the NCLT.

10. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid observations, the order dated 24.04.2024 is hereby vacated.

11. Re-notify the matter on 03.10.2024 for final hearing.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. AUGUST 29, 2024