Kamaljeet Bajwa & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

16. The Writ Petitioner also made a statement on affidavit that the Petitioner Padmavati Investment Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered Office at Birla Building 9/19 l, R.N Mukherjee Road, Police Station-Hare Street, Kolkatta-70000. It was further contended in the writ petition that M/s Jayashree Land Development Ltd. purchased 54 bighas 16 biswas land comprising of various Khasras including Khasra No. 402 (7 bighas 7 biswas) situated in village Kharera sub Tehsil at Police Station Mehrauli vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.1950. Later on M/s Jayashree Land Development Ltd. amalgamated Digitaaly with M/s Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills Ltd. vide order dated 21.11.1967 passed by Calcutta High Court in C.P No. 281/1967 in connection with CA No. 158/1967. It was further stated in the Writ Petition that in the year 1999, vide Press certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies, the name of M/s Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills Ltd was amended to M/s Padmavati Investment Ltd (the Writ Petitioner).

17. The Writ Petitioner further contended that out of the total land comprising of 54 bighas 16 biswas land, the Land Acquisition Officer of Govt. of NCT vide Award dated 22.03.1971 acquired land measuring 52 bighas 9 biswas, and in the award, land measuring to 2 bighas and 7 biswas from Khasra No. 402 of Village Kharera (Petitioner‟s land) was not acquired.

18. The Petitioner further stated that as 2 bighas and 7 biswas of land was not acquired and the land acquisition proceedings have attained finality, the Petitioner kept on representing before the authorities to demarcate the land admeasuring to 2 bighas and 7 biswas of Khasra No. 402. The Petitioner submitted a letter on 15.11.2017 requesting the Respondents to carry out the demarcation and also deposited the demarcation fee on 30.12.2017.

19. The Petitioner further stated that in the month of February 2018, the Petitioner requested the Respondents to demarcate the land, and in turn the Petitioner was directed to approach M/s Deeba Orthographies Pvt. Ltd. which is an approved agency of the Government to carry out demarcation work of the total land, in order to indentify Petitioner‟s land. Digitaaly

20. The Petitioner thereafter approached M/s Deeba Orthographies Pvt. Ltd. to carry out the demarcation works and deposited a sum of Rs.7,06,000/-, and demarcation was carried out by the M/s Deeba Orthographies Pvt. Ltd. on 15.02.2018. The Petitioner thereafter requested the authorities to issue an approved demarcation report and properly demarcated site plan to the Petitioner identifying the Petitioner‟s land, however, the same was not done, and, in those circumstances, the Petitioner came up before this Court praying for the following reliefs: ―(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ. or direction of a similar nature thereby directing the Respondents to release the approved demarcation report and approved demarcation Plan to the Petitioner w.r.t the Petitioner land (2 Bigha 7 Biswas out of Khasra No. 402, Village Kharera); and/or (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction of a similar nature thereby directing the Respondents to carry out the physical demarcation at site by putting stone pillars on the Petitioner's demarcated land (2 Bigha 7 Biswas out of Khasra No. 402, Village Kharera); and/or

(c) Pass any other Order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.‖

21. It is pertinent to note that the Appellant before this Court was not initially made a party in the Writ Petition and this Court on 08.09.2020 passed the following order: “The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. CM APPL. 20262/2020 (by petitioner for directions) Digitaaly

1. The applicant seeks fresh demarcation of its lands. It had earlier paid Rs.7.99 lacs to M/s Deeba Orthographics (P) Ltd. for the said exercise but no Demarcation Report has been supplied to it. It is suffering on account of the delay. De hors it rights to recover the said money and/or be given a Demarcation Report apropos the previous demarcation exercise for which the monies were paid, the applicant is ready and willing to pay such fresh fees/monies as may be requisite for a fresh demarcation. Intimation in this regard will have to be furnished by the Department of Revenue, GNCTD.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already moved an application on 15.11.2017 which was received in the Office of ADM. It is annexed at page no.137 of this petition. The Department of Revenue, GNCTD shall take the said application into consideration and pass appropriate orders apropos demarcation. The monies as may be required to be paid, shall be so paid by the applicant/petitioner as may be directed by the Department of Revenue, GNCTD. The Demarcation Report shall be supplied to the applicant/petitioner within eight weeks from today. The petitioner reiterates that the these monies will be paid, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, to pursue its claim for the earlier demarcation report and/or refund of the earlier paid monies.

3. Should the earlier demarcation be held to be valid, the subsequent amounts paid shall be refundable to the applicant/petitioner. The demarcation will obviously be carried out with reference to permanent reference points, in accordance with law.

4. The application is disposed-off in the above terms. W.P.(C) 6916/2018, CM APPL. 26218/2018, CM APPL. 16565/2019 CM APPL. 16566/2019 & CM APPL. 26288/2019 Digitaaly

5. List for further proceedings on 11.11.2020.

6. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the counsels through e-mail.”

22. On 24.05.2022, it was brought to the notice of this Court that demarcation has been carried out in respect of land measuring 2 bighas and 7 biswas situated at Khasra No. 402 (7-07), village Kharera and pillars are to be fixed as per the demarcation report and the Learned Single Judge on 24.05.2022 has disposed of the Writ Petition. The order dated 24.05.2022 reads as under:

23. The present Appeal is arising out of the aforesaid orders and contention of the Appellants is that they are the owners of shops situated at Convenience Shopping Complex (CSE Complex), Hauz Khas which is built Digitaaly over the Khasra Number in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 402 village Kharera, and they are in peaceful possession from past 15-35 years.

24. The Appellants have stated that land measuring to 52 bighas and 9 biswas in village Kharera was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act vide notification dated 24.05.1961 by the Government and a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18.10.1968. Finally an award was passed acquiring the land, and the Government took possession of the land.

25. The Land was handed over to DDA and in the year 1980-90, the DDA constructed a commercial complex i.e. Convenience Shopping Centre Complex upon the Khasra No. 402 village Kharera. Auction was carried out and shops were allotted by following the process of auction and now after about 35 years, the Petitioner is claiming rights over the land on which the Appellants are carrying out their business.

26. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has vehemently argued before this Court that village Kharera, New Delhi has been urbanised on 28.05.1966, and, thereafter, the Revenue Department is not the authority for any land situated in the said village. The land in question is in possession of DDA, and, therefore, any process of demarcation or handing over of possession cannot be undertaken without the consent or approval of the DDA. Digitaaly

27. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards a notification dated 28.05.1966. He has vehemently argued before this Court that the entire exercise of carrying out demarcation is void ab initio, and, heavy reliance was placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of K. Jayaram Vs. Bangalore Development Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 1194.

28. Learned Counsel has also argued before this Court that in spite of the fact that applications were preferred for dismissal of the Writ Petition, demarcation was carried out on the orders of the authority who were not competent to do so, and by no stretch of imagination, land in respect of which proceedings were initiated in 1961 can be demarcated at this juncture by the authorities who are not even the land owning authorities. He has vehemently argued before this Court that when the shop keepers have been in possession for the last 15 to 35 years, the question of dispossessing them based upon some demarcation report of the authorities, who are not competent to do so does not arise. The proper remedy for claiming title and possession of the land is a Civil Suit and not a Writ Petition. The Appellants have given details about the shop keepers and the Appellant No. 1 who is a senior citizen is in peaceful possession of shop for the last 36 years. It was allotted to the Appellant No. 1 by DDA on compassionate ground. The Appellant no. 2 is in possession of the shop in question since 1987. The Appellant No. 3 is in possession since 1997. The Appellant No. 4 has also established that his predecessor in title had purchased the shop in open auction from DDA and he is also in possession. The other Appellants have also furnished all minute details in respect of their possession and the same Digitaaly reflects that all the shops were allotted through a transparent process to the Appellants by the DDA, and they are bona fide purchasers.

29. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi has also argued before this Court that the DDA is the land owning agency, and as the land falling in village Kharera stood urbanized on account of notification dated 28.05.1966, the only competent authority to carry out demarcation is DDA. It has been categorically stated that there cannot be any application under the Delhi Land Reforms Act and Delhi Land Revenue Act as the authorities under the aforesaid Acts cannot exercise a jurisdiction in respect of village Kharera as it has been urbanized.

30. Thus in short two main grounds have been raised by the Appellants in the present Appeal. (a) That no application for demarcation was maintainable before the revenue authorities keeping in view the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as „Land Revenue Act‟) and Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as „Land Reforms Act‟), as the village in question was urbanized in the year 1966 and it is only DDA which can order for a demarcation being the land owning agency. (b) The Appellants are bona fide purchasers of the shops in question. They are the title holder and a land in respect of which proceedings were initiated in 1961 can by no stretch of imagination be placed in Digitaaly possession of Padmavati Investment Limited based upon some application for demarcation, that too which was submitted to the authorities not competent to do so.

31. The most important question in the present case is the title of Padmavati Investment Limited in respect of the land in question.

32. The Writ Petition filed by M/s Padmavati Investment Limited reveals that the land in question was initially purchased by M/s Jayashree Land Development Ltd. admeasuring 54 bighas 16 biswas comprising of various Khasras including Khasra No. 402 situated at village Kharera, Sub Tehsil Police Station Mehrauli vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.11.1950. Undisputedly, in respect of land owned by M/s Jayashree Land Development Ltd. land acquisition proceedings were initiated and a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was notified on 24.05.1961. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.10.1968 and finally an award was passed.

33. The writ petitioner Padmavati Investment Limited has categorically stated that on account of an order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 21.11.1967 passed in CP No. 281 of 1967 in connection with CA No. 158, M/s Jayashree Land Development Ltd. amalgamated with M/s. Padmavati Raje Cotton Mill Ltd.. It has been further stated that in the year 1999 vide certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies the name of M/s. Padmavati Raje Cotton Mill Ltd was amended to M/s. Padmavati Investment Limited Digitaaly The order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 21.11.1967 is on record and the same is reproduced as under: “President of the Union of India. In the matter of Companies Act 1956 And In the matter of Companies Act, 1956 and in the matter of The Jayshree Land Development Limited an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at No. 15 India Exchange Place Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid And In the matter of Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills Ltd. an existing company within the meaning of the companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at No. P 46A Radha Bazar Lane Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid And The Joy Shree Land Development Limited and padmavati Raje Cotton Mills ltd. Applicants. The above petitioner coming on for hearing on this day upon reading the said petition, the order dated the twenty first day of August last whereby the abovenamed the Joy Shree Land Development Limited (herein after referred to as the said transferor company) and padmavati Raja cotton Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said transferee company) were ordered to convene separate meeting of the equity shareholders of the said transferor and transferee companies for the purpose of considering and if thought fit, approving with or without modification the scheme of Amalgamation proposed to be made between the said transferor and transferee companies and annexed to the joint affidavit of Makhan Lal Jain and Bhagwati Prosad Goenka filed on the twenty ninty day of September last, ―the statesman‖ dated the fourth of day of September last and ―the Sanmarg‖ dated the third day of September last each containing the advertisement of the said notice convening the Digitaaly saidmeeting directed to be held by the said order dated the twenty first day of August last, the affidavit of Nabin Ranjan Guha filed on the twentieth day of September last showing the publication and despatch of the notices convening the said meetings and an affidavit of puranjoy chahbe filed on the fourteenth day of November last and the exhibits therein referred to and the order made herein and dated the twentyninth day of September last the report of the Chairman of the Said meeting dated the twentyninth day of September last as to the result of the said meeting and upon hearing Mr. S. C. Sen advocate for the said transferor and transferee company and Mr. P. K. Sen advocate for the Central Government and it appearing from the report that the proposed scheme of the Amalgamation has been approved unanimously. This Court doth hereby sanction the said scheme of Amalgamation set forth in paragraph 4 of the said petition herein and in the schedule ‗A‘ hereunder written and doth hereby declare and the same to be binding with effect from the first day of September in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven on all the shareholdars and creditors of the said transferor and transferee companies. This Court doth order (1) That all the property rights and powers of the said transferor company specified in the first, second and third parts of the schedule ‗A‘ hereto and all other properties, rights and powers of the said transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the said transferee company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to section 394(2) of the Companies Act 1956 be transferred to and vest in the said transferee company for all the estate and interest of the said transferor company therein but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same and (2) That all the liabilities and duties of the said transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the said transferee company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to section 394(2) of the Companies Act 1956 be transferred to and Digitaaly become the liabilities and duties of the said transferee company and (3) That all proceedings now pending by or against the said transferor company be continued by or against the said transferee company and (4) That the said transferee company shall allot to every member or the nominee or nominees of every member of the said transferor company who shall require the transferee company to do so one 9.5% Redeemable cumulative preference share of Rupees one hundred each fully paid for every two equity shares of Rupees one hundred each fully paid held by them and (5) That the said transferor company do within fourteen days from the date hereof cause a certified copy of this order to be delivered to the Registrar of Companies West Bengal Calcutta for registration and on such certified copy being so delivered the said transferor company shall be dissolved and the the said transferor company and registered with him that file kept by him in relation to the said transferee company and the files relating to the said two companies shall be consolidated accordingly and (6) That any person interested shall be at liberty to apply to the court in the above matter for any directions that may be necessary (7) That the costs of and incidental to this application to be taxed if necessary by the taxing officer of this Court be paid by the said transferee company and (8) that the said transferor and the transferee companies do pay to the Central Government its costs of and incidental to this application assessed at ten gold mohurs. Witness:- Shri Deep Narayan Sinha Chief Justice at Calcutta aforesaid this twentyfirst day of November in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven. Hatian & co. – Attorneys.

S. D. Pyne-Attorney.”

Digitaaly “Schedule „A‟ above referred to Scheme of Amalgamation The Joy Shree Land Development Limited And Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills Ltd. Part-1

1. That all the properties, rights and powers of the Joy Shree Land Development Limited (hereinafter called "the Transfer or company) Specified in the first second and third schedules hereto and all other properties rights and powers of the Transfer or company be transferred without further act or deed to padmavati Raje Cotton Mills Limited (hereinafter called the Transferee Company") and accordingly the same shall pursuant to Section 394 (2) of the Companies Act 1956 be transferred to and vest in the Transferee company for all the estate and interest of the said Transfer or company but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same and

2. mat all the liabilities and dues of the said Transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the said Transferee company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to section 394 (2) of the Companies Act 1956 be transferred to and become the liabilities and duties of the transferee company and

3. The said transferee company shall allot to every member or the nominee or nominees of every member of the transferor company who shall require the Transferee Company to do so. 9.5% Redeemable cumulative Preference shares of Rs. 100/each fully paid in respect of every 2 equity' shares of Rs. 100/each fully paid up and held by him,

4. The Redeemable cumulative Preference shares shall confer upon the holders thereof a right out of the profits of the company calculated for the purpose of distribution to a fixed cumulative divided on the capital at the rate of 9.5% per annum for the time being paid thereon (free of company's tax but subject to deduction of tax at source) with effect from 1st Digitaaly September 1967 and in the event of winding up they shall rank both as regards dividend and claim on capital in priority to the Equity shares but shall have no further rights to participate in surplus profits or assets. The company shall have the right to redeem in whole or in part of the said Redeemable cumulative Preference shares at par at any time after five years but not exceeding seven years from 1st September 1967 by giving not less than one months prior notice in writing and in the case of partial redeemption the number of shares to be redeemed.

5. The 3.9. 70 Equity shares of Rs. 100/- each in The Joy Shree Land Development Limited held by padmavati Raje Cotton Mills limited shall stand cancelled and no shares will be issued in respect thereof. Part II

1. The transfer company and the Transferee company shall make necessary petition to the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta for the sanction of the scheme and the scheme shall become operative from 1st September 1967 or such date as may be directed by the said Hon'ble court at Calcutta and/or decided by the Directors of the said companies,

2. Until the scheme is sanctioned and the transfers are effected as aforesaid the Transferor company shall by their Directors carry on business thereof in the same manner as heretofore so as the maintain the same as a going concern.

4. The Transferee company shall pay on the costs, charges and expenses of or incidental to the scheme and the carrying out of the same into effect.

5. The Directors of the said companies may assent to any modification to this scheme or to any condition which the court may think fit to approve or impose before granting sanction,

5. D. Mitra 10.268 For Register Schedule ―above referred to Part-I Digitaaly Free hold property of the transferor company

1. Land at 2 Judges Court b. Kt. Cn. Sft. Road, Calcutta 2 13 0 6

2. Land at 17c Darga 1 2 11 20 Road Calcutta

3. Lend at bamunary 20 1 10 26 Khaitan No. Plot No. B. K. CH. SFT. 173 506 493 507 293 519 175 522 849 523 878 514 293 516 293 518 Mouza Bamunary, Dist. Hoogly 430 520 293 513 292 578 293 512 78 527 174 556 618 555 1044 521 1039 515 Digitaaly 1035 569 1040 560 292 517 292 567

4. land At Makhala Touzi No. Khatian No. Plot No.

5. land at liluah Dag. No. 1989 and 1990 Khatian NO. 1719, J.L. NO. 12, R.S. NO. 1975, Tauzi NO. 3989,Mouza Liluah 1 0 13 42

6. land at 37 Diamond Harbour Road Lot ‗A‘ 3 2 4 7

7. Land at Rishra (of which 3 Bighas have been sold but not yet conveyed) 4 16 3 05 Digitaaly

8. Land at kutas Mehrauli road delhi (of which 12400 sq. yds. have been Sold but not yet conveyed) 55,238 sq. Yds. (approximately) Part-II LEASEHOLD PROPERTY LAND AT KALIMBONG PLOT No. 455 Situated in the development Area Part-II at Kalimpong in the P.S. kalimpong, District- Darjeeling 4 16 3 05 Part III Stocks, shares debentures and other choses in action Compensation claim in respect of rishra land 68 4 0 0

S. B. Mittra 15.2.68

For Registrar ―C.P. No. 281 of 1967 Connected with C.A. Suit No. 158 OF 1967 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction In the matter of Companies Act 1956 And In the matter of The Jayshree Land Development Limited Digitaaly

(i) Date when the decree or order was completed 16.2.68 B

(ii) Date of application for

(iii) Date of notifying the requisite number of folios and stamp 21.3.96 B

(iv) Date of delivery of the

(v) Date on which the copy is

(vi) Date when delivery was

Taken of the copy by the Applicant 26.3.96 B Superintendent, Order Department Superintendent, Copyists‘ Department, High Court, O.S. Advocate.”

34. The amalgamation order passed by the High Court of Calcutta nowhere includes the land situated in Delhi.

35. In the considered opinion of this Court, as land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1961, and the Calcutta High Court has passed an order on 21.11.1967, the predecessor in title M/s Jayshree Land Development Ltd. rightly did not offer the land situated in Delhi as the Section 4 notification was issued in the year 1961 in respect of the Delhi Land. Digitaaly

36. Keeping aside the abovementioned fact, on account of the amalgamation order as the land in question does not form part of the properties mentioned in the amalgamation order and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that M/s Padmavati Raje Cotton Mill Ltd. (petitioner) became the title holder of the land in question. Meaning thereby, the Writ Petition was preferred by a stranger who has not been able to establish any right in respect of the land in question before this Court.

37. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the M/s Padmavati Investment Limited confronted with the aforesaid situation has admitted in the open Court that the order passed by the High Court of Calcutta dated 21.11.1967 does not include the land which is the subject matter of the present litigation.

38. It is really strange and shocking that a total stranger to the land has filed an application before authorities not competent to order for demarcation, and by filing frivolous application in respect of the urbanized land, is making an attempt to dislodge bona fide purchasers who have purchased the property through open auction from the DDA.

39. The present case is a classic example of the land grabbing modus operandi for depriving the legitimate owners from continuing in possession.

40. M/s Padmavati Investment Limited is guilty of misleading this Court and is also guilty of suppression of facts as an incorrect statement was made in the Writ Petition that on account of amalgamation order passed by the Calcutta High Court, the land was transferred to Padmavati Investment Limited. Digitaaly

41. A person who does not come with clean hands is not entitled for any relief of whatsoever kind. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481: 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1025 in paragraph Nos. 34 and 38 has held as under:

44. In light of the aforesaid judgment as the Writ Petition has not come with clean hands, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

45. The other important aspect of the case is whether the land in question is an urbanized land as village Kharera, New Delhi had already been notified for urbanization in the year 1966. The notification issued in the year 1966 reads as under: Digitaaly Digitaaly “ Digitaaly Digitaaly Digitaaly ”

46. In light of the aforesaid notification, the authorities under the Delhi Land Reforms Act or Delhi Land Revenue Act do not have jurisdiction in respect of the Village Kharera to order for any demarcation.

47. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the land was urbanized, the Land Reforms Act or the Land Revenue Act were not at all applicable, no such demarcation application could have been preferred before the revenue authorities.

48. In the case of Indu Khorana Vs. Gram Sabha and Ors. in W.P.(C.) No. 4143/2003, the Division Bench of this Court in Paragraph Nos. 6 to 11 has held as under:

49. In light of the aforesaid judgment once, by virtue of Notification No. F.9(2)/66/Law/ Corpn. dated 28.05.1966, the land is declared to be urbanized land, it can no longer be classified as village body land and the provisions of Land Reforms Act and the provisions of Land Revenue Act are not at all applicable.

50. In the present case, the application was preferred for demarcation under the Land Reforms Act. The application itself was not maintainable, and, therefore, in light of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, the subsequent demarcation report deserves to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge is hereby set aside.

51. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Trikha Ram Vs. Sahib Ram in Civil Revision Appeal No. 373/1995 and Shri Neelpadmaya Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyabir and Ors. in CS(OS) No. 78/2007.

52. The land situated in village Khaera has already been urbanized by notification of the year 1966 and also forms part of the notification of the master plan/ zonal plan under the Delhi Development Act. It ceases to be agriculture in nature and the authorities under the Land Revenue Act and Digitaaly Land Reforms Act were not having the requisite jurisdiction to carry out the demarcation, hence, the entire exercise at the behest of Revenue authorities under the Land Reforms Act and Land Revenue Act demarcating the land and putting pillars almost after 50 years is bad in law.

53. The Writ Petition filed by Padmavati Investment Limited for issuance of a direction in respect of demarcation was certainly a frivolous petition, and an attempt was made to dispossess the title holders who are running their shops in a shopping complex constructed by the DDA after a lapse of about 35 years. Any dispute in respect of title in the peculiar circumstances of the case cannot be resolved in a Writ Petition proceeding and the proper remedy for Padmavati Investment Limited was to file a Civil Suit claiming title in respect of the land in question that too by impleading persons who are in possession of the land.

54. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230, in Paragraph 28 has held as under:

55. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306, in Paragraph No. 7 has held as under:

56. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as the appellants were seriously disputing the title of M/s Padmavati Investment Limited, the writ petition preferred by M/s Padmavati Investment Limited was not at all maintainable. M/s Padmavati Investment Limited has prayed for demarcation claiming itself to be title holder of the property, and once the title was seriously disputed, the writ petition should have been dismissed as disputed questions of fact were involved.

57. Another important aspect of the case is that at no point of time was the registered convenience deeds in respect of the Appellants the subject matter of the Writ Petition. The convenience deeds were executed by the Digitaaly DDA conferring ownership right in favour of the Appellants and dispossessing the lawful claimants and title holder of the property by taking shelters of the orders passed in a writ petition is un-heard off. The demarcation carried out in the matter deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

58. Once the land in question was urbanized vide notification dated 28.05.1966, the authorities were not at all competent to carry out demarcation as it has been done in the present case and, therefore, the orders passed in the Writ Petition dated 08.09.2020 and 24.05.2022 are hereby quashed.

59. The present case reflects a very disturbing trend which is prevalent in the society of grabbing Government land by creating documents. The Company who is not the title holder of the property by making false averment that it is title holder of the property, made an application for demarcation to the authorities which were not competent to carry out demarcation and gradually documents were created to establish title, with the view to, therefore, claim possession.

60. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Padmavati Investment Limited has played a fraud in the matter and fraud vitiates all proceedings.

61. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1, in Paragraphs 1 and 5 has held as under:

62. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319, in Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25 and 37 has held as under:

64. In light of the aforesaid judgments, as a fraud has been played upon by M/s. Padmavati Investment Private Limited, the present Appeal deserves to be allowed with heavy cost, and, therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Appeal is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs to be paid by M/s Padmavati Investment Private Limited within a period of 60 days to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund. The matter shall be listed before the Registrar General for reporting compliance of the present order in the matter of payment of cost.

65. The present LPA stands allowed and is accordingly disposed of. LPA 609/2022 and C.M. Nos. 46224/2022, 46226/2022 & 46227/2022

66. The present LPA is arising out of an order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 10851/2022 titled Kamaljeet Bajwa & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors..

67. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondent Padmavati Investment Limited filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 6916/2018 stating that they are owners of the land situated in Khasra No. 402 (7 bighas and 7 biswas) located at village Kharera, Sub Tehsil in Police Station Mehrauli. It was stated by them that M/s Jayashree Land Development Ltd. has purchased the land totalling to 54 bighas and 16 biswas situated at Village Kharera, Sub Tehsil Police Station Mehrauli vide registered sale deed dated 25.11.1950 and on account of an order passed by Calcutta High Court dated 21.11.1967 passed in CP No. 281 of 1967 M/s Jayashree Land Development Ltd. amalgamated with M/s Padmavati Raje Cotton Mill Ltd. In the Writ Petition it was stated that thereafter the name of the Company was changed Digitaaly from M/s Padmavati Raje Cotton Mill Ltd. to M/s Padmavati Investment Limited.

68. The Writ Petitioner Padmavati Investment Limited came before this Court stating that total land of 54 bighas and 16 biswas owned by M/s Jayashree Land Development Ltd. which subjected to land acquisition proceedings and land admeasuring to 52 bighas and 9 biswas was acquired and an award was passed on 22.03.1971 leaving behind 2 bighas and 7 biswas from Khasra No. 402 Village Kharera.

69. M/s Padmavati Investment Limited submitted representations for demarcation of the remaining land i.e. 2 bighas and 7 biswas and as no demarcation was carried out, a writ petition was preferred being W.P.(C.) No. 6916/2018.

70. The demarcation report was finally submitted on 23.04.2022 qua the properties of the Appellants herein (Petitioners in W.P.(C.) NO. 10851/2022), and the present appellants came up before this Court for quashment of demarcation proceedings.

71. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition by passing order dated 19.07.2022 and the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 19.07.2022 reads as under: “CM APPL. 31545/2022 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 10851/2022

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs: Digitaaly ―a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the Demarcation Report dated 23.04.2022 qua the Petitioners property; b) That this Hon 'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Notice bearing F. No. SDM/ HK/ Demarcation/Kharera402/(2018)/2020/738 dated 22.06.2022 issued by Respondent No. I qua the Petitioners' property; c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. I to not to proceed with the demarcation during the pendency andfinal disposal of the present Writ Petition; d) For cost of the Petition and; e) For such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances, as the case may require.‖

2. After some length of arguments on behalf of the parties and after perusing the contentions made in the instant petition, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the instant matter as the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish any cogent reasons to prove its case.

3. At this juncture, learned senior counsel for the petitioner made an innocuous prayer to grant liberty to approach the SDM of Hauz Khas, Mehrauli Badarpur Road, Saket, New Delhi and file an appropriate application/representation.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the learned senior counsel for petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In view of the innocuous prayer on behalf of the petitioner and no objection on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate Digitaaly representation/application along with the copy of this order before SDM of Hauz Khas, Mehrauli Badarpur Road, Saket, New Delhi within one week. After receiving of the said application/representation, the respondent is directed to dispose of the application/representation after hearing the petitioner and pass a detailed and speaking order in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three weeks.

7. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.”

72. Against the aforesaid order the present LPA has been filed.

73. This Court while deciding the LPA No. 618/2022 has held that M/s Padmavati Investment Limited was not the title holder of the property. The property was not a part of the assets transferred to the Padmavati Investment Limited and the application for demarcation was preferred by a total stranger. Henceforth, in the considered opinion of this Court the demarcation report dated 23.04.2022 which was prepared on an application preferred by M/s Padmavati Investment Limited deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.

74. The other important aspect of the case is that the Appellants before this Court are bona fide purchaser of the property. They have purchased the property. Their shops are located in CSE complex, Hauz Khas and property was transferred to them through a public auction.

75. The land was acquired by the Government of NCT of Delhi, and was handed over to DDA, which has constructed a shopping complex and finally the shops have been allotted to the present Appellants. Digitaaly

76. This Court is of the considered opinion that the demarcation was carried out at the behest of the person who is not title holder. The application for demarcation was not at all maintainable as it was a case of urbanized land, and, therefore, the prayer in the Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 10851/2022 by Kamaljeet Bajwa deserves to be allowed, and, is, accordingly, allowed.

77. The demarcation report dated 22.06.2022 is hereby set aside.

78. The present LPA stands allowed, and, is accordingly, disposed of. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE JULY 18, 2023 aks Digitaaly