NARESH SAINI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 8.3.2011. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction for preventing the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from acting upon the cancellation of the plot No.280, Pocket -6, Block B, Sector -7, Rohini, New Delhi admeasuring 25.9 sq. mtr.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent No.2/ defendant No.2 Sh. Ruhat Kumar Dewan, and who remained ex -parte in the trial Court, was allotted the suit plot on 14.9.1982. The possession of the plot was handed over to the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 11.7.1986. The allotment of the suit plot to the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 was pursuant to an application made by the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 under a 1981 scheme of the DDA. As per the admitted rules of the DDA, there cannot be allotment of an immovable property to a person, if such person has already been allotted another immovable property by the DDA. It was found that the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 had applied under an earlier 1979 scheme of the DDA for a flat, and had in fact been allotted a flat on 29.7.1985, and physical possession of which flat was taken by the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 8.5.1986. The respondent No.2/defendant No.2, in violation of the rules, took possession of the suit plot on 11.7.1986, and to which he was not entitled to, having already been allotted and having taken possession of the flat on 8.5.1986 pursuant to 1979 scheme. The rights in the suit plot were transferred to the appellant/plaintiff by means of certain documentation dated 11.4.1990. These documents are an agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney etc. dated 11.4.1990. The appellant/plaintiff claims to have raised construction on the plot and obtained sewerage, water and electricity connections and thereafter applied for conversion of the plot from leasehold to freehold with the respondent No.1/DDA. On this application for conversion being made, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 rejected the application on the ground that respondent No.2/defendant No.2 had no right in the plot as the allotment in the name of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 was cancelled after issuing of show cause notices dated 24.6.1988, 25.10.1990 and 30.3.1992. The defendant No.1/respondent No.1 also took up a stand that building plan dated 6.10.1987 is a forged and fabricated document as no building plan can be sanctioned unless the lease deed is executed and registered and which has not been done in the present case. It was argued that the documents which are relied upon on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff are hit by Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The respondent No.1 further averred in its pleadings that the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 was informed about the cancellation of the allotment of the suit plot vide letter dated 23.10.1992.

(3.) The trial Court has dismissed the suit by giving findings including of the documents dated 11.4.1990 being the agreement to sell, general power of attorney, receipt etc cannot be looked at as they are not registered documents. I may note that Supreme Court recently in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of Haryana and Anr. : 183 (2011) DLT 1 has also held that the documents being the agreement to sell, general power of attorney etc being an endeavour to defraud public authorities and public revenue would be treated as void unless the documents have already been implemented by the public authorities i.e. unless the documents had already been implemented by the public authorities, such type of documentation is void and cannot be acted upon. Therefore, in the facts of the present case the subject documents dated 11.4.1990 are void in that no ownership interest in the suit property is created by virtue of such documents in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries (supra).