SEEMA THAKUR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by Ms. Seema Thakur through her attorney Mr. Vijay Kapoor challenging the action of Land and Development officer, the respondent No. 2 in granting mutation and executing conveyance deed dated 20th December, 2004 conveying freehold title in property No. 18/50, east Patel Nagar, New Delhi in favour of Mr. Gopi Chand, the respondent No. 3.

(2.) AT the outset, it may be noticed that respondent No. 3 disputes and contests the right of Mr. Vijay Kapoor, who has filed the present writ petition as the attorney on the ground that the power of attorney dated 25th July, 2007 is forged and fabricated.

(3.) THE leasehold rights in the aforesaid property were earlier granted to Mr. Hans Raj Vig and on his death inherited by Mr. Pran Nath Vig. The property was under the tenancy of father-in-law of Ms. Seema Thakur, late Mr. Bansi Lal thakur, who was earlier carrying on business in partnership with his father late Mr. Kansi Ram Thakur. Mr. Pran Nath Vig entered into agreement to sell and executed some other documents in favour of Ms. Seema Thakur on 31st May, 2004. It is the case of Ms. Seema Thakur that she paid Rs. 6 lacs to Mr. Pran Nath Vig and had also deposited Rs. 4,65,000/- with the respondent No. 2 towards penalty for unauthorized construction. It is also her case that she had engaged respondent No. 3, a property dealer, for his services to get the property mutated in her name in the records of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner states that respondent No. 3 in a fraudulent manner got alleged documents executed from Mr. Pran Nath Vig on 31st May, 2004 after stating that the petitioner had agreed to sell the property to him.