W.P (C) No. 8312 of 2022
Citicap Housing Developments Ltd Vs Union Of India & Ors
Date of Order:
Justice Siddharth Mridul; Justice Gaurang Kanth
CITICAP HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LTD – Petitioner
UNION OF INDIA & ORS – Respondent
It was ruled by the Delhi High Court that mere submission of a sales deed in front of the court does not exonerate the petitioner from their burden of proving their complete ownership of the property in question, nor does it establish the current status of the property’s possession.
- This petition was filed by the petitioner appealing to the high court to direct the respondent to hand over the possession of his property in the village of Bahapur, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
- It is also prayed by the petitioner to grant an alternative compensation if handing over the possession of the land is not possible, such as awarding a reasonable compensation or a plot in a different area or a residential home in the same area of exactly the same price and size of the impugned property under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Execution of the sales deed was done by the Registrar of this very court in the favour of the petitioner in the order dated 08/11/1993 transferring the property from M/s Avishkar Estates Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has made claims that it has absolute ownership rights over the property in the above-executed sales deed.
- The said land was in possession of the DDA (Respondent No.3) at the time of the execution of the sales deed, even after repeated attempts of the petitioner to establish contact, the respondents did not take any action resulting in the above petition.
- There have been many writ petitions filed by the petitioner prior the current appeal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER
- The petitioner contended that they approached the Delhi Jal Board multiple times through all means but there was no reply or action taken by the board regarding the land status.
- The Petitioner had made numerous requests to the Respondents in order to acquire the property in question and get the market value of the property as compensation, or alternatively, to be given another plot with the same valuation as the property in question. However, there was no reply and as a result, the petitioner went to the High Court.
ARGUMENTS FORWARDED BY RESPONDENTS
- It was contended by the responding side that the impugned land was a part of an already developed colony, this was found in a demarcation report which was requested by the petitioner himself.
- The Court found that the issue entailed contested factual issues that could not be resolved in a writ petition. It was mentioned that the Petitioner asserted ownership of the property in dispute.
- It was also recognized, nonetheless, that the Respondents already had possession of the property in question prior to the issuance of the sale deed for the property in question in the petitioner's favour.
- The ambiguous possession status of the land in question was highlighted by the court and doubt was expressed as to how exactly the respondent came into possession of the property. It was stated that appropriate facts need to be adduced to establish a clear picture.
- It was held that the Petitioner must demonstrate that it is legally entitled to the significant remedy sought in the current Writ Petition. When the fact of occupancy in the benefit of the petitioners is not proved from the records available, just recording the Sale Deed will not relieve the petitioner of the duty of demonstrating its right to seek compensation for the challenged land.
The Court thus ruled that the Writ Petition was not the right course of action for the Petitioner. The Court stated that although the Petitioner had acquired the property from the previous original or documented owners as a subsequent buyer, there was no evidence on file showing the Petitioner had been given ownership of the property in question.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement