RAJ NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C. ") for setting aside the order dtd. 10/11/2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) CBI-01, Saket Courts, New Delhi in revision petition No. 07/2016 filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 19/8/2016 passed by the SDM(Hauz Khas).

(2.) The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the present matter are that there is a plot bearing No. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, measuring 499 square yards. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the said property on the basis of an Agreement to Sell dtd. 24/2/1986, executed in his favour by late Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana. The said late Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana had also executed a General Power of Attorney, Will, Receipt of payment of Rs.16.00 lakhs and an Affidavit to complete the sale in favour of the petitioner on 24/2/1986. The original documents pertaining to the property were also handed over and continue to remain in the power and possession of the petitioner. The property has also been mutated in the name of the petitioner vide a registered Conveyance Deed executed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short, "DDA ") on 12/8/2013.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana expired on 5/4/2011 and the respondent No.2 arrived from USA on 29/4/2011 and requested the petitioner to allow him to live in the said property for some time. Since the respondent No.2 was the brother of late Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana, the petitioner allowed him to use one room. However, unknown to the petitioner, the respondent No.2, with the active connivance of his sister Smt. Sangeeta Bambani, and with criminal intent, filed an application before the DDA on 2/7/2011 seeking mutation of the property in their names. When the petitioner learnt about this, he filed objections before the Deputy Director, DDA, requesting that since he was the bona fide owner of the property, no mutation be allowed in favour of the respondent No.2. Despite several notices by the DDA to the respondent No.2 for production of all original documents pertaining to the property, the respondent No.2 failed to appear before the concerned official of the DDA and produce the relevant documents. Thereafter, he also claimed that he had lost all the original documents of the property. As the petitioner had filed all the original documents before the DDA, the file was sent on 16/8/2012 for vigilance inquiry.