Twenty-two years after the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a show-cause notice for what it thought was an illegal transfer of a lease property and continued to pursue a legal battle over it, the Delhi High Court termed it an example of harassment of citizens and directed the Vice-Chairman of the land-owning agency to constitute a committee to look into the matter.
Violation
A Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta was hearing an appeal filed by the DDA challenging the transfer of a 400-sq yard plot in Panchsheel Park by a widow to her nephew by way of a will in 1992. The DDA had claimed that the plot was sold in violation of its lease conditions. It continued filing appeals in the court even after it had come on record before the trial court that the transfer was by way of a will and that there was no sale.
Dismissed
The DDA had issued a show-cause notice in May 1997, after which the nephew moved the trial court. The DDA, however, moved the first appeal after the trial court’s verdict, which was dismissed due to delay in filing. It then moved a second appeal, which came to be heard by Justice Mehta.
“...let [the] Vice-Chairman of [the] DDA constitute a committee of two very senior officials of the DDA to conduct an enquiry that whether at all citizens of this country such as the respondent/plaintiff should have been harassed in the facts of the case such as the present by continuing with this litigation.”
The court directed the committee to examine if once the contents of the will proved that there was no sale, should the DDA officials not have withdrawn the show-cause notice. It directed examination of the role of officials who advised filing of appeals in the case.
Justice Mehta said it showed “the insistence of the DDA to continue with the present legal proceedings, and an indication as to how citizens of this country are harassed by officials of public bodies such as the DDA.”
The court held that at the time of filing of the first appeal itself, the DDA knew that the transfer in present case was by a will and not sale, and it should have had “the courtesy not to continue to harass the citizens of this country and it should have withdrawn the show-cause notice”.
