Chatur Sain v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 07 Feb 2023 · 2023:DHC:913

Prathiba M. Singh

W.P.(C) 12613/2022

2023:DHC:913

civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed coercive enforcement including bailable warrants against a respondent who violated a Court undertaking to vacate property in favor of an 83-year-old senior citizen petitioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Full Text

2023/DHC/000913

W.P.(C) 12613/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th February, 2023

W.P.(C) 12613/2022
CHATUR SAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Prachi Vashisht and Ms. Shashi Kant, Advocates (M-9810240038).

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC, Civil GNCTD with Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Advocate for R-1 to 3 with SI
Deepika PS Paschim Vihar East.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

JUDGMENT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is a petition seeking directions to Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to comply with order dated 24th September, 2018 passed by Respondent No.2- District Magistrate, District West, 3 - Shivaji Place, Raja Garden, New Delhi-110027 in Case no. 34 of 2017/1731 titled ‘Shri Chatur Sain v. Smt. Jayanti Khanagwal’ under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Vide the said order, Respondent No.2 has directed to handing over the possession of property bearing No. A- 1/232, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 to the Petitioner.

3. It has to be noted that vide order dated 18th October, 2022, passed in WP(C)No.14709/2022 titled “Jayanti Khanagwal v. Chatur Sain & Ors.” preferred by the daughter-in-law, Mrs. Jayanti Khanagwal - Respondent No.4 in the present case, an undertaking was given to the effect that she would vacate the premises within three weeks from the date of the order. The relevant observation of the said order is set out below:

“4. Notwithstanding the above and bearing in mind the fact that the petitioner is staying alone in the premises in question along with an eleven year old child, the Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would warrant reasonable time being accorded to her to vacate the premises in question and to move to another accommodation which is stated to have been purchased and identified by the husband, the respondent No.3 here. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the said respondent has placed for the perusal of the Court a copy of an Agreement to Sell dated 09 March 2021 in respect of a property situate in Build-up upper ground floor in property bearing Nos.62 and 63, Khasra No.9/10, Shiv Vihar Block-B, Nilothi Extn. New Delhi- 110041 and submits that he shall accompany and facilitate the petitioner moving into the aforesaid premises which are owned by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if respondent No.3 were to make appropriate arrangements for her stay in the identified premises, she would have no objection to vacate the premises in question and give up the challenge to the impugned orders. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the Court closes the instant proceedings with the direction that the petitioner shall duly vacate the premises in question not later than within three weeks from today. The third respondent shall duly facilitate the movement and shifting of the petitioner to the premises which are owned by him and make appropriate arrangements for the residence of the petitioner and her child. Respondent No.3 shall also provide all property related papers to the petitioner to enable her to verify the same and satisfy herself with regard to the interest

which is stated to be vested and existing in favour of respondent No.3.”

4. It is evident from the above order dated 18th October, 2022, that the daughter-in-law, Mrs. Jayanti Khanagwal- Respondent No.4 had given an undertaking that she would vacate the premises within three weeks from the said date. Despite this position, Respondent no.4 has not handed over the possession of the property to the Petitioner, who is the father-in-law.

5. On 20th December, 2022, ld. Counsel appearing for the GNCTD as also the Tehsildar submitted that the order would be enforced and steps for eviction would be taken. Accordingly, this Court directed that the order be given effect to and the report be filed at least two weeks before the next date of hearing.

6. Mr. Vashisht, ld. Counsel appearing for the GNCTD and SDM has handed over a report dated 7th February, 2023 which reads as under:-

“ 1. That the matter regarding eviction/vacating of House No. A- 1/232,Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from Smt. Jayanti Khanagwal & her husband Sh. Dushyant Khangwal was taken up on 05-01-2023 and a team consisting of Revenue field staff of sub-Division, Punjabi Bagh under the supervision of undersigned alongwith police force visited the site for implementation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 20-12-2022 and it was found that the House No. A-1/232,Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was found locked thus the eviction process could not be implemented. The photocopy of the general diary of P.S. Paschim Vihar dated 05-01-2023 alongwith the photograph of the team’s presence before the aforesaid house is annexed as Annexure-1 for kind consideration of the Hon’ble High Court. 2. That the inspection of the house was also carried out on several time by the Revenue field staff and the

house was found locked and finally a programme was also fixed for eviction of the aforesaid house for 27-01- 2023 but the aforesaid house was found locked thus the drive could not be held.”

7. The above report shows that the SDM has merely stated that on repeated visits to the property, he found that the house was locked.

8. It is clear that there is complete violation of the undertaking given to the Court and the SDM is also not taking proper steps to give effect to the orders passed by this Court. The order dated 18th October, 2022 brings no ambiguity insofar as the undertaking to vacate, which has been given by the Respondent No. 4.

9. The Petitioner is a 83 years old senior citizen who is still being deprived of his property despite orders having been passed by the Court in his favour. Under such circumstances, it is directed as under:i) Let bailable warrants be issued to Respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be executed through the SHO PS- Paschim Vihar East. ii) The concerned SDM Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma shall take such coercive measures as may be required to ensure the implementation of the order dated 18th October, 2022 and that the possession of the property bearing No.A-1/232, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi be handed over to the Petitioner. iii) The SDM shall request for any police deployment, if required, from the concerned SHO, which shall be provided. iv) The SDM shall intimate Respondent No. 4 on her mobile NO. 9310233929 of the date when the breaking open of locks or any other steps would be taken by the concerned SDM. Even if the Respondent No. 4 is not present, the SDM would proceed with taking action.

10. List for reporting compliance on 1st March, 2023 on top of board.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE FEBRUARY 7, 2023 MR/rp

Chatur Sain v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation