Rahul Ranjan Verma, Mr. Aman Dhyani, Ms. Kanchl Semwal and Mr. Ajay Tewari, Advs v. SDM HAUZ KHASH SOUTH DELHI

Judgment

1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R 08.04.2025 The present petition seeks, inter-alia, the following prayers: “a) direct the respondent to dispose of the Application bearing No. (SDM) Hauz Khas 2016/2890 titled as Raj Narayan Singh Vs. Jatinder Sardana, and de-sealing the property bearing No. S-94, measuring 499 sq. yards, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017, in favour of petitioner within time bound manner. b) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The background of the matter is that the property bearing no. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110017, measuring 499 sq. yards (hereinafter ‘the subject property’) was leased out by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana vide lease deed dated 08.12.1967. It is submitted that on 24.02.1986, the subject property was purchased by the petitioner from Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana by way of an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, payment receipt of Rs.16,00,000/- (rupees sixteen lakhs), Will and Affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:29:16 filed an application seeking mutation of the subject property in his favour. The original registered documents (the Agreement to Sell and the GPA) are stated to be in possession of the petitioner. 3. After Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana expired on 05.04.2011, one Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sardana (brother of Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana) along with Smt. Sangeeta Bambani (sister of Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sardana), both of whom are not parties to the present proceedings, filed an application before the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking mutation of the subject property in their favour. The petitioner objected to the said application and filed original documents pertaining to the subject property before the DDA. 4. In 2012, Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sardana also allegedly entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for sale of the subject property in favour of one Sh. Murari Mirchandani - a third party. Thereafter, on

11.04.2012, an agreement for sale of the subject property in favour of Sh. Murari Mirchandani was executed by Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sardana and other legal representatives of Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana for a consideration of Rs. 19 crores. However, the subject property could not be purchased by Sh. Murari Mirchandani in terms of the agreement to sell executed on

11.04.2012 inasmuch as Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sardana had been restrained from alienating the subject property on account of a partition dispute initiated by Sh. Sangeeta Bhambani. 5. Consequently, a civil suit being CS(OS) 1081/2014 for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Sh. Murari Mirchandani before this Court. In the said proceedings, Sh. Raj Narayan Singh (petitioner herein) was impleaded as defendant no.5. 6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed an application before the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:29:16 DDA for the conversion of the subject property from leasehold to freehold. The same was allowed and a conveyance deed dated 28.06.2013 was executed and registered by the DDA in favour of the petitioner. 7. Attention is also drawn to an order dated 21.04.2014, passed in the said Civil Suit [CS(OS) 1081/2014] wherein it was noted that the Sh. Raj Narayan Singh (defendant no.5 therein) had purchased the property from Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana on a date much prior to the Agreement to Sell dated 11.04.2012 executed in favour of Sh. Murari Mirchandani. 8. In the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2014, it has also been noticed that Sh. Raj Narayan Singh had been in possession of the subject property and had also obtained the conveyance deed (dated 12.08.2013) for freehold rights in respect of the subject property. 9. In the circumstances, having noticed that the possession of the subject property had been with Sh. Raj Narayan Singh (petitioner herein), this Court did not pass any injunctive orders therein against the present petitioner. 10. In the said order dated 21.04.2014, it was also noticed that a title suit had been filed by the sibling of Mr. Surender Kumar Sardana i.e. CS(OS) 5649/2016, filed in the Court of ADJ-1, South, District Court, Saket. It is pointed out during the course of the present proceedings that the said suit was abated qua the defendant no.1 (Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sardana) on

06.09.2018. Further, on 01.12.2018, even qua the plaintiff no.2, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. As such, there is no pending litigation qua the petitioner’s title over the subject property at the behest of the siblings of Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana. 11. In the Civil Suit being CS(OS) 1081/2014 filed by the Sh. Murari This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:29:16 Mirchandani, the siblings of Mr. Surender Kumar Sardana have not filed the written statement. The relevant orders have been placed on record in the present proceedings. 12. It appears from the aforesaid background that the petitioner was inducted in possession of the subject property pursuant to title documents executed in his favour by Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana. 13. It is pointed out that the writ petition being W.P.(C) 258/2014 filed by Sh. Jatinder Kumar Sardana assailing the Conveyance Deed dated

28.06.2013 issued in favour of Sh. Raj Narayan Singh came to be dismissed on 30.01.2014 and the consequent appeal therefrom being LPA No. 171/2014 filed by Sh. Jatinder Sardana was also dismissed on 14.10.2014. 14. It is relevant to note that on 17.09.2014, a kalandara proceeding under Section 145 CrPC came to be initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and pursuant to which the subject property was sealed. Aggrieved by the proceedings before the SDM, the petitioner assailed the order dated 17.09.2014 before this Court in a petition bearing Crl. MC No. 203/2016. The said petition came to be disposed of vide order dated

18.01.2016 whereby the SDM was directed to dispose of the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC pending before it, within a period of six months. Consequently, the pending proceedings under Section 145 CrPC before the SDM came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2016, however, the subject property continued to remain sealed in terms of the said order. 15. Since the the petitioner was inducted in possession pursuant to title documents in his favor, it is strenuously contended that there did not exist any emergent circumstances warranting exercise of jurisdiction by the SDM under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. However, it is not for this Court to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:29:16 examine the said aspect in greater detail inasmuch as the order passed by the SDM in the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC has been subject matter of challenge in different proceedings and the same were not interdicted. 16. It is submitted that the dismissal of the civil suit CS(OS) 5649/2016, filed by Sh Jatinder Kumar Sardana (brother of Mr. Surender Kumar Sardana) has resolved outstanding controversy/ies, if any, as regards the title of the petitioner over the subject property. Further, it is pointed out that in CS(OS) 1081/2014, this Court has not passed any restraining order / injunctive order against the petitioner on the behest of the plaintiff therein. It is submitted that on the basis of these circumstances, the property is liable to be de-sealed. 17. An application bearing No. 2016/2890 seeking de-sealing of the subject property has been filed by the petitioner before the SDM, Hauz Khas. The said application is pending consideration. 18. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner seeking de-sealing of the subject property is required to be considered by the SDM, taking into account all the intervening developments and all relevant aspects of the matter. 19. This Court is prima facie satisfied that the intervening developments, to which attention is drawn to in the present proceedings are required to be considered by the SDM. 20. 21. Learned counsel, as aforesaid, accepts notice on behalf of the Issue notice. respondent. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent accedes that the application filed by the petitioner for de-sealing of the subject property shall be considered in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:29:16 the light of the intervening developments as noted hereinabove. An appropriate order shall be passed thereon, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 23. The legal recourse previously taken against the action of the SDM shall not come in the way of the SDM considering the matter afresh and in accordance with law. However, the SDM shall take into account all relevant aspects of the matter, including various orders passed in different judicial proceedings concerning the subject property. 24. Let the application filed by the petitioner seeking de-sealing of the subject property, be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. 25. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. APRIL 8, 2025/cl SACHIN DATTA, J This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2025 at 12:29:16