Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Mohanjit Singh Legal Heirs

1. By this order, I shall decide this application filed by one Rajneesh Malik, S/o Late Sh. K.C. Malik, aged about 60 years, R/o B- 56, Inderpuri, New Delhi with the following prayers:- “In the circumstances stated above, it is therefore prayed that:a. That the present application / objections along with its annexures be placed for consideration by the Hon'ble Court / Learned Registrar on 21.09.2021. b. The security as directed to be released may kindly not be released before disposal of my submissions made in terms of Annexure - A email dated 18.09.2021.” 2021:DHC:4271 RFA 20/2016 Page 2

2. The instant application has been filed annexing therewith a communication sent by this Court on the administrative side on September 18, 2021 to the petitioner, in response to an e-mail sent by him to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court dated September 15, 2021 which is reproduced as under. In response to the said email, the applicant was directed to seek a remedy on the judicial side. “15-09-2021 To The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India (Supreme Court of India) The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi (High Court of Delhi) New Delhi Respected Sirs,

1 Rajneesh Malik age 60 years state that anomaly, violation of laws is done in appeal filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Mohanjit Singh thr legal heirs in RFA 20/2015 and in application No. 4605/2020. Thus resulted a setback to justice, wrongful gain to private parties and wrongful loss to govt. This is regarding a land on which Mohanjit Singh in partnership established a firm and dealership of retail outlet in year 1964. With passage of time the Mohanjit Singh and his partners retired till 1977. Than a new person in 1977 took over the firm, assets and dealership and than in 1986 the same firm become partnership and in 2006 the same firm with assets become proprietorship of my brother for running the dealership. Tho Mohanjit Singh executed partnership deeds along with other partners by transferring a land as his share to newly constituted partnership firm in 1964. The land which he purchased through sale deed of 1964 with address or land khasra No. 113/1, 113/2 village Tajpul, New Delhi. After transferring the land to partnership firm for establishing RFA 20/2016 Page 3 dealership he secretly, individually executed a fabricated lease deed with the than ESSO petroleum company by mentioning factitious address of road address of mile 11/1 Mathura Road, New Delhi for retail outlet without the knowledge of partnership firm. In the year 2000 (new number CS 40/2006) Mohanjit Singh filed a suit of eviction and claiming rent from HPCL. It is important to mention that above khasras belong to gaon sabha and public road recorded in Aks Shizra-of year 1953-54(it is notified layout plan of the area),Girdawari, KhatunI records of Revenue Department of Delhi Govt. Further the parties in the case concealed the case till the year 2012 from the dealership firm. HPCL disclosed litigation pendency of case in 2012 to my brother. Earlier in above mentioned case in the year 2004 the HPCL filed an affidavit in which HPCL discloses to the courts that the land of dealership is not on the same land as mentioned in lease deed but it is GAON SABHA LAND (PUBLIC LAND) and address of land is khasra No, 113/3, village Tajpul, New Delhi and Mohanjit Singh is not the owner of the land and HPCL filed the orders of SDM of the year 1981 and 2001. (HPCL affidavit Annexed). It is pertinent to mention that LRs of Mohanjit Singh parallel to various court proceedings secretly filed an appeal before District Magistrate South East, Old Gargi College Building, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi to claim the ownership of the khasra No. 113/3 village Tajpul, New Delhi of which they have no tittle deed,sale deed, further the LRs concealed these proceedings from all courts till date. HPCL has also prepared a tittle search report which confirms the land of retail outlet is of gaon sabha and not of Mohanjit Singh or his LRs. (Copy of HPCL tittle search report is Annexed). Final orders in the RFA20/2016 the court has allowed Mohanlit Singh suit by giving public land rent money from HPCL which is contrary to the Law settled by Supreme Court of India in its judgment JAGPAL SINGH vs STATE of PUNJAB in year 2011. It is the law that no GAON SABHA RFA 20/2016 Page 4 LAND be given to any private person and all encroachments to be removed and ordered that Chief Secretary of ail states to make policy for settled law in another case Supreme Court repeated same orders in Joginder Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others in Fab 2021. (Judgments ANNEXED). In the proceedings of RFA20/2016 in the year 2017 HPCLfor safety of rent money moved an application and requested to the court for deposit of surety from LRs of Mohanjit Singh. On HPCL request the court ordered LRs of Mohanjit Singh for deposit of surety in the high court, against the release of huge money crores of rupees from HPCL as rental of posh area village Tajpul.( Pls note:It is open fact that village Tajpul is a big urban slum and urban poor area and not posh area as mentioned in court orders) Doing anomalies, violations, misrepresentation, false affidavits regarding public land and public money by LRs, the Mohanjit Singh LRs moved an application for release of surety. Objection by HPCL in its statement before the court stated that they will file written statement to the LRs application.! Order Annexed). Later in orders it is found that the HPCL verbally stated for release of surety to LRs before court. On verbal statement by HPCL court ordered release of the surety to return back to LRs( Order Annexed). No written statement filed by HPCL a govt PSU. In the mysterious circumstances it raises the suspicious activities and questions (1) that how a Gaon Sabha Land along with rent money is extorted by private persons Mohanjit Singh and his LRs Amarjit Kaur, Aniljit Singh in violation of settled law by Supreme Court of India in which it is required by Hon'ble court directing all courts and authorities for safe guard of public lands and public roads for public at large? (2) Whether all courts are not bound by Article 141 of constitution of India ? RFA 20/2016 Page 5 (3) how without the written statement of HPCL and by verbal statement of HPCL the surety is being taken back by Mohanjit Singh LRs ? (4) On whose written instructions HPCL govt PSU not filed written statement in spite of its mention in court orders? PRAYER I request you to save nation property (public property) and money as per law settled in above mentioned Supreme court judgments, Recover public property and money back from Mohanjit Singh and his LRS as per law in above mentioned Supreme Court Judgments, restore the land use Public utility services as ordered in above mentioned Supreme Court judgments, Stop release of surety back to Mohanjit Singh LRs which is lying deposited in High Court of Delhi in the interest of ion and protect Rule of Law settled by Supreme Court of India, Make inquiry, investigation and call for records from courts and give hearing to me on this application of complaint before Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi.”

3. Suffice to state, that the above RFA was filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (‘HPCL’, for short) against the judgment / decree dated October 09, 2015 of the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court has granted possession of piece of land measuring 200 X 125 X 198 X 125 ft situated at Mile 11/1, Mathura Road, New Delhi and mesne profits in favor of the respondents, the legal heirs of Mohanjit Singh, who has since deceased.

4. When the matter was listed on January 13, 2016, this Court had asked the appellant HPCL to deposit entire decretal amount due upto January 31, 2016 and also the mesne profits for the future months. RFA 20/2016 Page 6 Pursuant thereto, the appellant HPCL has deposited the amount. On an application filed by the respondents/legal heirs of Mohanjit Singh, the amount was directed to be released upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar General. Accordingly, Ms. Manjiv Kaur has given the property being BP 10A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110014 as a security for the release of the amount. The amount was being released to Aniljeet Singh in terms of the orders passed.

5. The appeal of HPCL was dismissed by this Court on July 31,

2019. Paragraph 50 of the judgment reads as under:- “50. Pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2016, the appellant has deposited the decretal amount and has further deposited on a monthly basis, after paying Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent, the differential amount of mesne profits with the Registry of this Court; which amount has been kept in an interest bearing FDR. In view of the appeal being dismissed, the Registry is directed to forthwith release the entire amount deposited by the appellant, in favour of the respondent, with upto date accrued interest thereon.”

6. Thereafter, the legal heirs of the deceased / respondent filed an application for release of the security as given for release of the amount in their favour. The same being CM No. 4605/2020. The said CM was decided by this Court on September 01, 2021, whereby the prayer was allowed wherein the statement made by the counsel for the HPCL was also noted.

7. Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva appears for the respondents i.e., legal heirs in this application. He has filed an affidavit of legal heir Aniljeet Singh. Along with the affidavit, he has annexed four documents being; (i) copy RFA 20/2016 Page 7 of order dated May 12, 2021 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in M.Ex.No.01/2021; (ii) copy of order dated May 20, 2021 passed in Ex.F.A. 11/2021; (iii) copy of order dated September 14, 2021 passed in Ex.F.A. 11/2021 and (iv) copy of order dated November 19, 2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6324/2020. He has also filed copy of order dated November 23, 2021 passed by DM in appeal filed by the respondents under Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1981.

8. His submission is that the present application filed by Rajneesh Malik is motivated and in continuance of various applications / Suit filed by Sanjeev Malik, (his brother) from Trial Court to the Supreme Court, to claim the suit property which were rejected / withdrawn. He has referred to orders dated May 12, 2021 in M.Ex. No. 01/2021 and dated May 25, 2021 in Ex.RFA NO. 11 /221 decided / passed by the Trial Court / this Court. He also states this Court has allowed the release of the security which has been given for release of the amount deposited by HPCL in this Court in the Appeal, as the Appeal filed by HPCL was dismissed.

9. On the other hand, Rajneesh Malik, the applicant, has through Mr. Hari Shankar, Advocate filed written submissions on January 11, 2021 and December 16, 2021. He was also represented in the hearing by Mr. Chetanya Puri, Adv. The submissions of the counsel are, (i) the applicant’s complaint is only to highlight the fraud / concealment by the respondents / legal heirs of Mohanjit Singh of public money and public land of Gaon Sabha, Khasra Nos. 113/1, 113/2, 113/3, Village-Tajpul, Badarpur and false sale deed; (ii) the chain of revenue records of ownership of title must be produced before the Court by the RFA 20/2016 Page 8 respondents and HPCL which is bound by the ESSO Act, 1974 which record is concealed by the respondents / legal heirs in all litigations till date from the Courts and notice given by EOW to HPCL to produce complete records since beginning of dealership; (iii) modus operandi of the respondents / legal heirs is to misuse the orders to grab the public land, public money and release of surety; (iv) the surety property is very much linked with land in question of Badarpur Gaon Sabha, because the decretal amount which is claimed by respondents / legal heirs is on the basis of land being used for petrol pump dealership of HPCL and which belongs to Gaon Sabha, Khasra Nos. 113/3, of which they have no title deed but rather the respondents / legal heirs throughout the proceedings in the Court filed the false title deed of Khasra Nos. 113/1 and 113/2; (v) counsel for the respondents / legal heirs has concealed the complaint case under 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the status report filed by EOW; litigation pending in District Court Saket for cancellation of Decree of RFA 20/2016.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents / legal heirs and perused the record, at the outset, I may state it is a conceded fact that the applicant / Rajneesh Malik is the brother of Sanjeev Malik, who had / has filed various litigations with regard to the suit property.

11. The respondents / legal heirs herein have filed an execution petition being M.Ex.No. 01/2021 before the concerned Court in Tis Hazari, Delhi seeking possession of the suit property from the appellant HPCL in terms of Decree / Judgment dated October 9, 2015. Sanjeev Malik had filed objections in the execution proceedings. RFA 20/2016 Page 9

12. Sanjeev Malik had made a claim with regard to the suit property i.e. Mile 11/1, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The objections filed by Sanjeev Malik were dismissed on May 12, 2021. The executing Court held, the objector Sanjeev Malik has no right, title or interest whatsoever in the property. The order dated May 12, 2021 of the ld. ADJ is challenged by Sanjeev Malik before this Court in Ex.F.A. 11/2021. This Court vide order dated May 20, 2021 had not granted any interim order restraining handing over of the property to the decree holder/respondents / legal heirs. In fact, this Court had directed HPCL to hand over the possession to the respondents herein. I have been informed that the said appeal is still pending consideration before this Court. Even from the orders, it is noted that Sanjeev Malik had filed a suit seeking declaration / title of the suit property. The plaint was rejected on July 02, 2019 and the appeal thereof is pending consideration before the Appellate Court, i.e., Additional District Judge. This Court in the order dated May 20,2021, has stated to protect the interest of Sanjeev Malik during the pendency of appeal, the suit property may be utilized in whatever manner, they deem appropriate, however, if the respondents intend to sell the property, they shall do so only after seeking permission from this Court.

13. That apart, Sanjeev Malik had also sought intervention / impleadment in the suit before the Trial Court from which the impugned judgment / decree arose in the above appeal, of which execution was sought. The application was dismissed, so also the review petition. The challenge before this Court in Civil Miscellaneous (Main) was also dismissed. It is also noted, Sanjeev Malik had also RFA 20/2016 Page 10 filed an impleadment application in the proceedings between HPCL and the respondents before the Supreme Court, which application was also dismissed. In fact, an application was also filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the present RFA, which was withdrawn by Sanjeev Malik as the suit filed by him has been dismissed.