Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 285 (DEL)

SRI GANGU SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2004-04-15

A.K.SIKRI, D.K.JAIN

body2004
D. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) TAKING note of the observations made by Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago that "fraud avoid all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" their Lordships of the Supreme Court said in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. These observations are very apt for the instant case. ( 2 ) THE case has a little chequered history. Pursuant to the scheme for allotment of alternative plots of land under the large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi, notified on 2 May 1961, applications were invited from those persons whose land was acquired for planned development of Delhi. The last date for submission of application was 10 December 1963. The petitioner, who had received compensation for acquisition of his land, in the year 1962 did not choose to apply for allotment of a developed residential plot within the stipulated period. An application dated 28 June 1978, submitted by him for alternative plot was received in the office of Land and Building Department on 12 July 1978 in file No. F. 32 (5)/3/78-Landb/alt. On the application, report of the LAC was received on 3 December 1981 and, as expected, the said application was rejected being barred by time. The rejection order was communicated to the petitioner on 31 May 1982. ( 3 ) THE order of the DDA, dated 31 May 1982, rejecting the application of the petitioner as time barred, was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 1705/1982 titled Gangu Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. The writ petition was decided on 19 October 1984 along with other cases. Though the fact of obtaining the plot on the basis of a forged letter was brought to the notice of the Court but the case of the petitioner was decided on the basis of the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Jain, whose request for alternative plot was rejected as barred by time. The impugned order was quashed on the ground that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. The impugned order was quashed on the ground that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. The Delhi Administration was directed to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and of being heard. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, as per the aforesaid directions a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20 March 1985, to which the petitioner filed his reply dated 6 April 1985. In the said reply, without furnishing any particulars as to the actual date when he applied for allotment of alternative plot, the petitioner simply stated that he had paid the price of the land and had also taken possession of the same. In the absence of any documentary proof in support of his claim, petitioner s request for allotment of alternative plot was rejected on 31 May 1985. The said intimation is impugned in the present petition. ( 5 ) AT this stage it is pertinent to note that in the meanwhile, on the basis of another letter No. F. 32 (21)/4/78-Landb/alt/5202, dated 9 February 1979, purported to have been signed by Secretary, Land and Building Department recommending the name of the petitioner for alternative allotment, an alternative plot in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was allotted to him; the petitioner deposited the requisite amount and was put in possession. However, on coming to know in the year 1980-81 that the allotment had been obtained by the petitioner on the basis of a forged letter, like in some other cases, vide letter dated 25 May 1982, the allotment was cancelled by the Delhi Development Authority (for short dda ). However, in the earlier writ petition the petitioner had not made any reference to the said order. ( 6 ) APART from praying for quashing of the said order, the petitioner has also sought a direction against the respondent not to interfere with his lawful possession of plot of land bearing No. 278, Block-J, Malviya Nagar Extention Residential Scheme, New Delhi. ( 7 ) THE petition was admitted to hearing on 3 October 1985. Vide order dated 3 February 1986, while confirming the interim order passed earlier, it was directed that the petitioner shall not make any construction on the subject plot except constructing a boundary wall. The said order continues to be in force. ( 7 ) THE petition was admitted to hearing on 3 October 1985. Vide order dated 3 February 1986, while confirming the interim order passed earlier, it was directed that the petitioner shall not make any construction on the subject plot except constructing a boundary wall. The said order continues to be in force. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is resisted by the respondents. In the affidavit dated 12 February 1998 filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, namely, the Land and Building Department, it is stated that when petitioner s case was examined in the said Department it was found that the file, in which the recommendation for alternative allotment was purportedly made was not available. When the matter came up for hearing on 4 September 2003, taking note of the affidavit filed by the Assistant Housing Commissioner, Land and Building Department, inter alia, stating that the allotment of an alternative plot was made on the basis of a forged letter and the DDA had accepted the cost of the plot taking the said letter to be genuine, the Court directed the Crime Branch, Delhi Police, to investigate into the matter and submit a report. ( 9 ) PURSUANT to the said order, a report has been submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Delhi. The relevant portion of the said report reads thus: ON enquiry it was revealed that in the year 1980-81, it was detected by Landb Department that the DDA had received certain recommendation letter purported to have been issued by the Landb Department for allotment of alternative plot. In fact these letters were never issued by Landb Department and no files were ever maintained in respect of these letters. On enquiry these letters were found to be forged and thus the matter was reported to the Vigilance Department and then to the Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi Administration. On this Anti Corruption Branch has registered a case vide RC No. 57/80. As per Landb Department they sent a list of 138 such cases to DDA which were found to be bogus and forged letters were sent to DDA for allotment of alternative plots. From the scrutiny of DDA record, it was revealed that name of Gangu Singh is figuring in the list sent to DDA (Annexure a ). As per Landb Department they sent a list of 138 such cases to DDA which were found to be bogus and forged letters were sent to DDA for allotment of alternative plots. From the scrutiny of DDA record, it was revealed that name of Gangu Singh is figuring in the list sent to DDA (Annexure a ). On the other hand from the scrutiny of record at Anti Corruption Branch it was revealed that, on the complaint of Landb Department, Anti Corruption Branch had registered a case vide RC No. 57/80 u/s 468/471/420/120b/161 IPC and 5 (2)47 POC Act (Annexure c ). In this FIR a list of 85 forged recommendation letters (Annexure d ) was referred to Anti Corruption Branch by Landb Department, but name of Gangu Singh is not figuring in this list. In this case one Assistant of Landb Department namely Sh. Joginder Singh was arrested. The case was chargesheeted on 25. 11. 86 and the accused was acquitted by the court of Sh. S. S. Bal, Hon ble ASJ on 29. 8. 2k by giving him benefit of doubt. Name of Gangu Singh is neither figuring in the list of 85 forged recommendations nor his name figured in the list of witnesses in the case registered by Anti Corruption Branch. Though a recommendation letter alleged to have been forged in the name of Gangu Singh, is available on DDA file. From the above facts, it may be concluded that as per the record of DDA, a forged recommendation letter No. F. 32 (21)/4/78-Landb Deptt. was received in DDA from Landb Department recommending the name of Gangu Singh for alternative plot and DDA allotted an alternative plot to Gangu Singh in Malviya Nagar on the basis of this letter but later on cancelled the allotment when it was informed by the Landb Department that the letter was forged one and no file was was ever opened in Landb Department in this connection. Sh. Bansi Dhar, the then Jt. Secretary (Landb) vide his letter (Annexure f ) dt. 1. 1. 82 addressed to the Commissioner (Land) DDA confirmed that file in respect of 134 persons were never opened by Landb Department and Gangu Singh s case was one of them. Sh. Bansi Dhar, the then Jt. Secretary (Landb) vide his letter (Annexure f ) dt. 1. 1. 82 addressed to the Commissioner (Land) DDA confirmed that file in respect of 134 persons were never opened by Landb Department and Gangu Singh s case was one of them. But this alleged forged letter is not a part of case registered by Anti Corruption Branch vide RC No. 57/80 in which a list of 85 forged recommendation letters were sent to Anti Corruption Branch by Landb Department. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) THE report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police leaves little doubt in our mind that the petitioner had obtained the allotment of alternative plot on the basis of a forged recommendation letter. He had taken undue advantage of the afore-mentioned scheme by an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure allotment, which undoubtedly amounts to fraud. Not only that he has also abused the process of the Court to retain the ill-gotten property and has in fact succeeded in retaining it for over two decades, after its allotment was cancelled on 31 May 1982. ( 11 ) WE do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Vashisht, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR registered on the basis of the list of 85 forged recommendation letters, the letter of recommendation in petitioner s favour cannot be said to be forged. It is clear from the afore-extracted report that the name of the petitioner does figure in the list of 135 cases sent by the Land and Building Department to the DDA, which were found to be bogus and forged recommendation letters. We have therefore, no hesitation in holding that the petitioner, having indulged in chicanery to secure allotment of alternative plot of land, has forfeited every claim for grant of discretionary relief. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 20,000/ -. Out of the said amount, Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, Room No. 1, Patiala House Courts. Rule is discharged and interim order dated 3 February 1986 is vacated. The respondents shall take back possession of the subject plot forthwith. --- *** --- .