S K SHARMA Vs. CHANDER PRAKASH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff before this Court claims to be engaged in providing services in the matters relating to filing and pursuing matters of his clients before government departments and corporations. Defendant No.1 before this Court was allotted a plot bearing No. 35, Block-C, Pocket-3, Sector-11, Rohini, by defendant No.2-DDA. The allotment letter was, however, sent at the address from where defendant No.1 had already shifted by the time it was despatched. He, therefore, did not receive the allotment letter which resulted in the allotment being cancelled by DDA. The case of the plaintiff is that in August, 2010, defendant No. 1 approached him and sought his help in getting the matter settled with DDA. The parties entered into an agreement, whereby they agreed that defendant No. 1 would pay a sum of Rs 17 lakh and 35% of the profit on the plot that shall be allotted to him by DDA. It is alleged that the plaintiff accordingly prepared representations and pursued the case of defendant No. 1, but, the response of the department was not satisfactory. The plaintiff, therefore, was left with no remedy, except to approach this Court by way of a writ petition. It is further alleged in the plaint that under instructions from defendant No. 1, the plaintiff took steps for consulting and engaging lawyers for filing of a writ petition. The said writ petition being WP(c) No. 6126/2010 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2010. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 expressed his inability to pay the legal expenses, including professional fee of the lawyers and requested him to bear all such expenses. The parties accordingly executed a further agreement on 05.12.2010, whereby it was agreed that in case the plaintiff succeeds in getting the allotment made at old rates in a developed sector, defendant No. 1 shall pay him a further sum of Rs 14 lakh towards his professional fee. This agreement, according to the plaintiff, was an addendum to the original agreement dated 10.08.2010. Plot bearing No. 35, Block-C, Pocket-3, Sector-11 of Rohini was then allotted to defendant No. 1 in the mini draw held on 03.02.2011. The allotment was made at the old rates. The case of the plaintiff is that he is entitled to recover Rs 31 lakh from defendant No. 1, comprising Rs 17 lakh under the agreement dated 10.08.2010 and Rs. 14 lakh under the agreement dated 05.12.2010 and is further entitled to 35% of the profits which would be derived on sale of the aforesaid plot. Besides recovery of money, the plaintiff has also sought a mandatory injunction for appointment of an officer of the Court to sell the aforesaid plot and pay 35% share of the profit to the plaintiff to him. He has also sought injunction, restraining defendant No. 1 from transferring, alienating or selling the aforesaid plot as also restraining defendant No. 2-DDA from transferring and handing over the possession of the aforesaid plot to defendant No. 1.

(2.) IN his written statement, defendant No. 1 has alleged that when he approached the concerned Deputy Director of DDA in a public hearing, he was told by him that the work could be done with the help of one Mr. Sharma, who had good connections with officers of DDA. That Deputy Director gave details of the plaintiff to him and even the amount to be paid to him was decided by the Deputy Director of DDA. Since defendant No. 1 had been waiting for about 29 years, he had no option, but, to agree to the proposal of the officer of DDA. The first meeting between him and defendant No. 1 took place in the chamber of the Deputy Director, who got a hand written paper signed from the plaintiff to be kept as a security. The document, however, was not signed by the plaintiff. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 was made to sign several papers on the representation that the same would be required for follow up action in DDA. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs 30,000/- to defendant No. 1, being part of the amount of Rs 75,000/- demanded by him. The plaintiff, however, failed to get the work done through DDA and that, according to defendant No. 1, was the end of the liaisoning agreement. Defendant No. 1 asked the Deputy Director Mr A.K. Gupta to return the papers, but he told him that the paper would be destroyed. The plaintiff then referred him to a lawyer known to him so that a writ petition could be filed in this Court. Defendant No. 1 has also taken a preliminary objection that the alleged agreement is against public policy since there is no system of liasoning in DDA, which is a government organization and also because such practice would promote corruption and bribing. According to defendant No. 1, the plaintiff is a part of a racket operating in DDA to trap nebulous registrants and adopting a particular modus operandi. He obtains addresses and details of successful allottee of DDA and then in collusion with DDA officials, he tries to settle the matter for a hefty sum. The plaintiff is alleged to be one such tout operating in DDA office. It has also been alleged that defendant No. 1 engaged a lawyer on reference and paid his professional fee and clerkage.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff is that under the agreement dated 10.08.2010 he was to be paid Rs 17 lakh and 35% of the profit on sale of plot in question to him with liasoning with DDA. This is also his case that under the agreement of 05.12.2010, he was to be paid a sum of Rs 14 lakh in addition to the amount agreed vide agreement dated 10.8.2010 and he was also to get 35% of the profit on sale of plot in question. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he is entitled to recover Rs 31 lakh from defendant No. 1 and is also entitled to 35% of the profit which defendant No. 1 would earn on sale of the aforesaid plot.