Sonam Asrani @ Ramila & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Ms. Sonam Asrani, along with her two children, arraying various officials of the GNCTD, including the District Magistrate (District-North-West), the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (North-West) and the SHO, PS Subhash Place as the Respondents, along with her mother-in-law and husband i.e., Ms. Padma Asrani and Mr. Rajesh Asrani respectively.

3. The Petitioner married Respondent No.6 in 1987. It is her case that disputes arose between them and there are various court cases and litigations pending. In 2018, the mother-in-law filed an application before the District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking eviction from the first floor of House No.38, Vasudha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘suit property’). In the said litigation, an arrangement was arrived at and on 18th October, 2018, a 2021:DHC:850 consent order was recorded wherein Petitioner No.1 and her children agreed to shift to the ground floor of the suit property. Thereafter, a comprehensive settlement agreement was also entered into on 14th February, 2020, by which it was agreed by the mother-in-law and the husband that they would transfer ownership of the ground floor of the suit property in the name of both children of Petitioner No.1.

4. Pursuant to the settlement which was entered into, the first motion for divorce has been filed and has also been allowed. The second motion is to now be completed.

5. In the present case, the allegation of the Petitioners is that despite a settlement having been entered into and the same having been given effect to by the Petitioners, Respondent Nos.[5] and 6 did not want to transfer ownership of the ground floor, in favour of Petitioner Nos.[2] and 3 i.e., the children. Notice dated 6th January, 2021 was even served on them by Petitioner No.1 asking them to execute the title documents since the documents were not executed. The notice stated that the Petitioner would have to otherwise recommence the proceedings.

6. However, to her shock and surprise, on 2nd March, 2020, various senior officers, including the Tehsildar and two-three police constables, along with her husband, entered the ground floor of the suit property at about 1:00 p.m. and are stated to have created a huge commotion.

7. It is alleged that Petitioner No.1 and her children were threatened to vacate the suit property and they were also intimidated, leading to an undertaking being signed by Petitioner No.1 that they would vacate one room on the ground floor within seven days. A copy of the undertaking has been emailed by Ms. Tandon, ld counsel to the Court Master. The same is extracted hereinbelow:

8. Mr. Kaushik, ld. counsel for the Petitioners, has shown to this Court a video-clipping which shows that several persons entered Petitioner No.1’s premises and also shows how Petitioner No.1 has been forced to sign the undertaking in the premises itself.

9. This matter is very serious. The initial consent order recorded before the concerned SDM dated 18th October 2018 and the Settlement Agreement dated 14th February 2020 entered into before the Mediation Centre, are clear to the effect that the Petitioners were to shift to the ground floor of the premises and the ownership of the said floor was to be transferred to the two grandchildren. The dispute qua one room does not seem to have been recorded in either of the two – i.e., the consent order or the Settlement Agreement.

10. A perusal of the undertaking extracted above shows that a team of government and police officials was present and the undertaking was signed in their presence. The Petitioner no.1 has requested for period of 7/8 days for vacating the rooms by 9th March 2021. It is not clear which rooms were sought to be vacated. She has also agreed to submit an affidavit by evening of the said date i.e., 2nd March 2021. A viewing of the video-clipping reveals that various police officers, along with a couple of Government officers, accompanied by the husband of the Petitioner no.1, have entered the premises of Petitioner No.1. They were also seen supervising her writing the undertaking. The contents of the statement have now been disclosed and it is clear that the same has been signed under some sort of pressure exerted by all the officials and the Petitioner no.1’s husband and mother-in-law. The undertaking is also counter-signed by them. When the disputes were pending in various courts, such alleged interference especially by officers such as the SDM/Tehsildar who himself exercises quasi-judicial powers was completely unwarranted.

11. The conduct of the Government officials who are stated to be of SDM/Tehsildar level and even the police officials deserves to be looked into by this Court. They are law enforcement officials and cannot be permitted to take action without the sanction of law. Accordingly, this Court directs the Divisional Commissioner of North-West Delhi, 5 Sham Nath Marg, Delhi to conduct an enquiry into the entire matter and submit a comprehensive report on the following aspects: i. As to who were the officials who went to Petitioner No.1’s premises and their specific roles; ii. As to at whose instance they visited the Petitioners’ premises; iii. As to the reasons why they visited the premises of the Petitioners; and iv. As to why they got an undertaking signed from Petitioner No.1.

12. For the said purpose, the Petitioners would be permitted to submit all the video/other documentation in their power and possession to the Divisional Commissioner. The report be filed within four weeks from today. Ms. Tandon, ld. Counsel, to intimate the Divisional Commissioner of today’s order.

13. In the meantime, the Respondents are restrained from interfering in the peaceful occupation and use of the ground floor of the premises by the Petitioners. Further, the SHO of the concerned area shall pay regular visits to the Petitioners to ensure their safety and security.

14. List on 14th April, 2021.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MARCH 5, 2021 dj/T