The recent judgement by the Delhi High Court in the Land Dispute Settlement case has brought clarity to the long-standing legal battle between the parties involved. The court’s decision provides resolution to the issues raised by the petitioners and respondents. Stay tuned to learn more about the intricate details of this landmark case.
Facts
- DDA failed to comply with a court order from 02.2020, prompting the petitioners to seek compliance.
- A settlement was reached between Vikas and the petitioners, leading to the sale of the subject plot.
- Both parties made payments totaling to Rs. 39,31,291/- with DDA for the plot.
- The plot was converted into freehold and conveyed to the petitioners in 2017.
- A FIR for cheating was filed by Vikas against the petitioners.
- The petitioners informed DDA about the settlement and subsequent court orders, but DDA did not execute necessary documents.
- A settlement MOU was signed in 2016, leading to possession of the property and execution of the lease deed in 2017.
- A sale deed for the plot was executed in 2018.
- Disputes arose between the parties over excess payments for the plot.
- A petition was filed seeking a refund of excess amount paid.
- Settlement agreement dated 26.03.2019 executed in Delhi Mediation Centre resolved disputes between Vikas and Respondents.
- Rs. 39,82,000/- directed to be released in equal proportions to Respondents.
- Court directed DDA to verify if any payment with respect to the plot has been made in excess.
- DDA confirmed an excess amount of Rs. 39,82,000/- paid for the subject plot.
- MOU dated 03.08.2016 explained reasons for excess deposit, settlement between parties, and possession of the plot by Respondents.
- Lease deed executed in favor of Respondents on 09.02.2017 by DDA after settlement between parties.
Arguments
- Learned Senior Counsel for DDA argued that DDA was unable to file a Counter-Affidavit to bring the fraud to the Court’s notice.
- DDA claims they were not given a fair opportunity to present their side due to the fraud committed by Vikas and the Respondents.
- The directions issued by the learned Single Judge are said to be unsustainable due to the fraud involved in the case.
- Multiple agreements to sell were mentioned, questioning the timing of money deposits by both parties.
- It was argued that Vikas had no rightful involvement in depositing money with DDA.
- Initially, the Respondents stated the money was deposited by Vikas on their behalf, but later changed their stance to deny Vikas any rights to the Plot.
- Inter se disputes between Vikas and the Respondents were sorted out through two settlement agreements.
- Criminal proceedings were initiated, and both parties agreed to file Petitions for quashing of the FIR due to the settlement.
- DDA had a Single Judge, and the issue of fraud was raised by the Respondents after six months.
- The learned Single Judge examined the issue on merits and found no infirmity, leading to the recall being dismissed on 28.09.2020.
Analysis
- DDA did not take any legal steps against the Respondents for the alleged fraud.
- DDA failed to comply with court directions and only raised fraud allegations after being questioned.
- DDA tried to withhold money despite court orders to pay the Respondents.
- Forfeiture of money without legal authority is prohibited.
- DDA received duplicate payment for the plot but did not return the excess amount.
- DDA did not request time to file a Counter-Affidavit before the court.
- The court found no fraud on the part of the Petitioner that would justify DDA’s actions.
- The court ordered DDA to refund the double payment made for the plot.
- DDA’s affidavit filing did not strengthen their case.
- DDA’s claim that the Petitioner was not entitled to relief was contradicted by the facts.
- DDA received the double amount paid for the plot and was instructed by the court to refund the excess to the Petitioner.
- In the case of Kulwant Singh v. DDA, a party made payment for a flat but was not allotted the flat and the amount was forfeited by the DDA.
- Vigilantism and moral policing are not the responsibilities of the DDA.
- The perception of fraud by the DDA cannot justify withholding the party’s money as money is considered ‘property’.
- The State cannot deprive a citizen of their property unlawfully, including money.
- Learned Senior Counsel argued that excess amounts should not have been refunded to the Respondents.
- He suggested that the extra funds should have been given to a charitable organization like the PM Relief Fund.
- The submission was deemed to be without any legal basis.
- DDA does not have the authority to appropriate excess deposited monies for any property.
- It is also not within their authority to suggest giving misappropriated funds to charity.
Decision
- The Registry is directed to release the deposited amount by DDA along with accrued interest to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportions.
- All pending applications are disposed of as well.
- The Appeal filed is considered unmerited and is dismissed.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KIRAN KAUR & ORS. (2024:DHC:4420-DB)
Case Number: LPA-325/2020
