PROPERTY SUIT TO RELEASE SURETY TO BE DISMISSED IN CASE OF MISMATCH OF PROPERTY SUIT : HIGHT COURT OF DELHI
Delhi HC Judgment The question as to whether the suit filed by the applicant regarding the use of public land for partnership and whether the public land rent money paid by HPCL in return valid in the eyes of law, was examined by THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI, consisting of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao in the matter of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Mohanjit Singh ( Deceased) the Legal Heirs [CM No. 32930/2021], on 20.12.2021
The facts of the case were that Mohanjit singh, in partnership established a firm which now the appellant’s brother is in dealership . During Mohanjit’s tenure he secretly entered into a contract of dealership with HPCL during his tenure of partnership in the year 1964. After his retirement he partnership was transferred by another person and in 2006 the same firm is proprietorship with the appellants brother who is running the dealership. The land given to HPCL and the deal done by Mohanjit Singh secretly was concealed from the then partners of the firm and the same land is also belong to Gaon Sabha and public road. This deal was further concealed by the then partners of the firm i.e the appellant. on January 13, 2016, this Court had asked the appellant HPCL to deposit entire decretal amount due upto January 31, 2016 and also the mesne profits for the future months. The amount was being released to Aniljeet Singh in terms of the orders passed. The appeal for of the respondent HPCL was then considered for the hearing.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that complaint is only to highlight the fraud / concealment by the respondents / legal heirs of Mohanjit Singh of public money and public land of Gaon Sabha and the chain of revenue records of ownership of title must be produced before the Court by the ESSO Act, 1974 is concealed. The main motive of the legal heirs is to misuse the public land for their own purpose.
The learned counsel for the respondent contended seeking possession of the suit property from HPCL. His submission is that the present application filed by Rajneesh Malik is motivated and in continuance of various applications / Suit filed by Sanjeev Malik, from Trial Court to the Supreme Court, to claim the suit property which were rejected /withdrawn.He also states this Court has allowed the release of the security which has been given for release of the amount deposited by HPCL in this Court in the Appeal, as the Appeal filed by HPCL was dismissed.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application and held that the suit property filed by the applicant does not match which the property in dispute. The issue raised by the applicant / Rajneesh Malik is not with regard to property which is given as security by Ms. Manjiv Kaur but a different property. The pending litigation before the ADJ / Suit or the proceeding before the Authority under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, can have no bearing on the release of the security / surety given by Ms. Manjiv Kaur. The Judgments relied upon by the counsel for the applicant shall have no applicability for the purpose of decision on this application and present application filed by Rajneesh Malik is clearly motivated.
By Reetasa Samal
