L ·H.C.D.-1 (a) Continuation Sheet n Sr. No. Date - - \ • • ' Orders % 08.04.2004 Present : Mr. Siddharth Malhotra. Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Zubcda Begum, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Gita Mittal with Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocates for respondent No.2/DDA. Mr. Abhilash Mathur, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. D.N. Narula with Ms. Vandana Miglani, advocates for respondent N .4. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for respondent L&B Depanment. + WP (C) 128312003 The enquiry report submitted by the RegistnK" (Vigilance) dated 16.03.2004 gives a finding that Mr. Vipin Vohra is the person who managed to procure and hand over copy of fabricated stay order. There are certain observations against Mr. T.N. Vohra and Mr. Jagdish Cha:Jder, Patwari, LAC Department, in so far as their conduct and statements made during the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner naturally disputes this finding. Taking the aforesaid facts and ci.«:umstaoces into coosidemtion and the gravity of the offence involved, I consider it appropriate to direct the Registrar General of this Court to register an FIR under the relevant provisions in view of the enquiry report of the Registrar (Vigtlance) and the matter be investigated by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police and the investigation to be carried out by an officer not less than the .mnk of Inspector undec the supervision of a senior officer. It will be open to the investigating agency to look into the roles of all concaned persons for the purpose of the investigation. The investigating officec will be permitted access to the judicial records in the present proceedings in accordance with law. A copy of the status report be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. The second aspect arises from the directions passed on the last date for the enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner (South) since the earlier order passed in that behalf had not been col11.1>1ied with. Mr. S.S. Y adav. })eputz.' Commissioner (.South) ts Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared the digital data is as per the physical file Signature Not Verified r .H.C.D.-1 (a) Continuation Sheet Sr. No. Date Orders 1/ present in Court and has placed on record the enquiry report which is taken oo record where a conclusion ha; been reached that sale deeds in questioo have been executed without obtaining the permissioo from the competent authority (N OC) as per the provisioos of Section 8 of the Delhi Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act. 1972 and Shri S.S. Sokhi. Sub-Registrar-III. Delhi, who registered the sale deeds has been responsible for the same. It is further stated that since sale deeds have been executed and registered in contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Delhi Land (Restriction 1nd Transfer) Act. 1972. the same is a punishable offence under the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act. Mr. Y adav assures that action in pursuance to the aforesaid finding shall be taken not later than 15 days from today and compliance report to that effect will be filed within three weeks in Court. 1he last aspect relates to the amount deposited in Court by the petitioner in pursuance to the Older dated 19.01.2004. counsel for the Gcoup-4 Securitas states tha part of the amount deposited by the petitioner is oo account of security deposit. This is apart from other claims which according to learned counsel is due from the petitiooer. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the liability to pay the amount 1nd claims that they have certain other claims against Group-4 Securitas. This. in my considered view. can be settled in the appropriate civil proceedings for which liberty is granted to the parties. 1he aforesaid amount was so directed to be deposited in view of the fact tha: the amounts of Group-4 Securitas were lying with the petitiooer and according to the rental, more amount than the amount deposited would be liable by Group-4 Securitas in respect of the months when they have enjoyed possession after the property which was Hable to be demolished. 1he detailed reasoos are recaded in the order dated 19.01.2(X)4. Since it is DDA who would have enjoyed this property over this period of time. I ronsider it aDDCooriate to direct the Re2istnr to release this -• •H.C.D.-1 (a) Continuation Sheet Sr. No. Date Orders amount along with any accrued interest thereon to the DDA, tobe used only for the development of horticulture. Learned counsel for the petitiooer points out that thece is an appeal pending against this order in which DO interim orders have been gnmted but at that stage the Division Berich did not grant such orders because the amount was' only directed to be deposited in Court. It is made clear that the direction for release of the amount in favour of the DDA is subject to the final orders to be passed by the Division Bench in the appeal filed by the petitioner. 1bere is one last aspect which arises from the contention of learned_. _ counsel for Group4 Securitas that there are bullet proof glass installed in the windows and seeks permission to remove the same and be replaced by ordinary glass to which DDA has DO objection. 1be needful be accordingly done. Before parting with the matter, I am pained to obsecve the manner in which the process of court has been misused in the present proceedings and fabricated order utilised to prevent the legitimate action by the statutory wthorities. The least said is bettec about the gravity of the offence committed. It is thus expected that the concerned authorities including the police authorities wtll look into the matec with due diligence and promptitude to complete investigation process at an early date. No further orders are called for in the writ petition and the same is disposed of. April 8, 2004 SANJA Y KISHAN KAUL, J