Case title: Govind Saran Sharma vs. Delhi Development Authority.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2802/2020 & CM APPL. 9787/2020, 7039/2021
Decided on: 18.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prathiba M. Singh
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case at hand involves allegations of corruption and malpractices in land allotments by government authorities in Delhi. The Assistant Commissioner of Police’s report highlighted the involvement of officials in corrupt activities, necessitating investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner accused the Land & Building Department (L&BD) of issuing forged recommendation letters for plot allotments by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The DDA initiated investigations to identify officials involved in the malpractices, leading to the filing of an FIR and plans for disciplinary proceedings. The court intervened by directing Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) officials to appear and provide a status report due to a lack of response. The subsequent report detailed meetings and actions taken to address the issue of forged documents and unauthorized plot allocations.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act): Mentioned in relation to potential involvement of government officials requiring sanction for investigation and prosecution.
Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Referred to in the context of initiating proceedings under this act for certain properties.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: Mentioned in relation to initiating proceedings under this act for certain properties.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
Govind Saran Sharma, the petitioner, alleged that the DDA had cancelled his plot allotment under a false name, leading to unresolved issues and grievances. The petitioner claimed to have made persistent efforts to address concerns regarding the allotment of the plot, seeking directions for the execution of conveyance deed or title documents for the subject property in his favor. These contentions by the appellant underscored the ongoing dispute and the petitioner’s pursuit of legal remedies to rectify the alleged wrongful cancellation of the plot allotment and to secure rightful ownership of the property in question.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) contested the petitioner’s assertion of forged recommendation letters for plot allotment, initiating internal investigations to identify officials involved in malpractices and taking disciplinary actions where necessary. The DDA also pointed out discrepancies between the petitioner’s claims and the records maintained by the Land & Building Department (L&BD), casting doubt on the authenticity of the allegations. Additionally, the Land & Building Department (L&BD) refuted the validity of certain recommendation letters for plot allotments, expressing concerns about the absence of records related to the petitioner’s allotment. The L&BD informed the DDA about the lack of documentation for the subject property, raising questions about the genuineness of the recommendation letter provided by the petitioner.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court analyzed the complex situation revealed through various orders in the case, particularly focusing on the issuance of forged recommendation letters by the Land & Building Department (L&BD) for land allotments and subsequent unauthorized property allocations by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The court expressed concerns about systemic vulnerabilities within the authorities, spanning a 40-year period, which challenged the integrity of public administration and trust. Considering the gravity of the allegations, indicating a breach of trust and a blatant disregard for the Rule of Law governing public land allocation, the court deemed it necessary for a thorough and impartial investigation. Therefore, the court treated the present writ as a complaint for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take appropriate steps in addressing the malpractices and ensuring accountability.
The court emphasized the importance of upholding integrity in public administration, transparency, and accountability in government actions. It underscored the role of the judiciary in safeguarding public trust and ensuring adherence to legal norms in the allocation of public resources. The judgment aimed to address the systemic issues and restore public confidence in the authorities by advocating for a credible investigation and accountability for the alleged malpractices. In conclusion, the court’s judgment reflected a commitment to upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and the Rule of Law, ensuring that public resources are allocated in a transparent and lawful manner, thereby promoting good governance and accountability in the administration of public affairs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
