YOGITA BAXLA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by one Mrs. Yogita Baxla questioning the validity of order dated 02.07.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4345/2010 filed by respondent No. 2 M/s Solomon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Before we point out the nature of order passed and the basis on which the said order is challenged, it would be necessary to go through some of the relevant facts. The appellant herein had filed a complaint dated 01.10.2009 with the DDA alleging therein that the property viz. industrial plot bearing No. B-65/2, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110 052 was got converted from leasehold to freehold by the respondent No. 2 M/s Solomon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of certain documents which were forged and / or false. We may record that the respondent No. 2 had inter alia submitted one Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed by Mrs. Raj Rani Chawla in favour of respondent No. 3 Mr. Raj Kumar Harjai (there is a dispute about the date of this SPA i.e. whether it is dated 02.04.2007 and 22.05.2007). According to the appellant, the SPA dated 22.05.2007 could not have been executed on that date as Mrs. Raj Rani Chawla had died on 19.04.2007. Another document which was submitted to the DDA is affidavit dated 27.06.2007 sworn by respondent No. 3 in which he made a statement to the effect that Mrs. Raj Rani Chawla was the owner of the property in question who had executed Power of Attorney in his favour and she was still alive.

(2.) W.P. (C) No. 14091/2009 was also filed by the appellant impugning the said conversion by DDA. The said writ petition was however disposed off (without hearing the respondent No. 2) vide order dated 22.12.2009 directing DDA to consider the complaint of the appellant after hearing the appellant as well as respondent No. 2.

(3.) The DDA examined the complaint and after hearing respondent No. 2 found that as Mrs. Raj Rani Chawla had died on 19.04.2007, the property could not have been converted from leasehold to freehold on the basis of aforesaid documents and thus passed order dated 29.04.2010 cancelling the Conveyance Deed dated 27.06.2007 which was executed in favour of the respondent No. 2 Company by converting the property into freehold. Challenging that order, respondent No. 2 Company filed the aforesaid W.P. (C) No. 4345/2010. In this writ petition, respondent No. 2 did not implead the appellant even when the action was taken by the DDA on the complaint of the appellant.