Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
On October 6, the Delhi High Court rejected a plea by one Balbir Singh who had asked for the demolition of alleged illegal construction on land that he claimed belonged to him. However, the petitioner had not sought to possess the property, which the court said “raises doubt as regards the genuineness and bonafide of the case”.
On October 13, the High Court took a “very serious” view of an attempt by one Farid Ali, who had used an allegedly stolen letterhead of a nonprofit called Delhi Ki Galiyan NGO to seek demolition of an alleged illegal construction in Okhla.
On October 14, the court noted an attempt to “blackmail” in a petition filed by one Manorama Sakkerwal seeking to stop construction on premises in Karol Bagh that she claimed to reside in.
On October 18, the HC took adverse note of a petition filed by one Tauqir Alam who had sought, without locus, action against alleged illegal construction in a property in Shaheen Bagh. The court said it would not aid “blackmailers” in attempts to “extort money”.
In at least four orders passed within a fortnight this month, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi HC has imposed costs between Rs 50,000 and Rs 1 lakh on “unscrupulous” individuals who approached the court with “nefarious”, “oblique”, and “ulterior” motives in asking for the demolition of alleged illegal and unauthorised constructions in properties across the city.
The HC deprecated the “concerning trend” of petitioners seeking to use the legal process to blackmail and extort, to arm-twist builders, and to deceive and defraud the court itself. Such people, “who try to use the process of the court for dishonest considerations”, must be dealt with “strictly”, the HC said.
Here are the four cases that Justice Pushkarna took up and dismissed with costs.
Jogabai Extn, Okhla
THE PETITION: One Balbir Singh sought directions to the authorities to stop and demolish alleged illegal and unauthorised construction being carried out in a property on a 200-square-yard plot in Jogabai Extension in Okhla, close to Jamia Millia Islamia in southeast Delhi.
Singh claimed to be the owner of the property. However, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had already taken demolition action at the site in September, following an earlier round of litigation over the same property, in which similar allegations were made by a different litigant.
Asked by the court whether he had filed a suit for possession of the property, Singh replied in the negative.
WHAT HC SAID: Singh’s reply prompted the court to observe, “This raises doubt as regards the genuineness and bona fide of the case put forth by the petitioner.” It was clear, the court said, that the writ petition had been filed “with nefarious designs and with an ulterior motive…on the basis that the property in question belongs to [the petitioner]”.
The court noted that “a new strategy is being employed by various parties wherein they file petitions against unauthorized construction on the ground that the premises where such unauthorized construction is being raised, is owned by such persons.”
Such “tactics and stratagem cannot be allowed to be adopted by such unscrupulous persons, who, in order to obtain unlawful gains for themselves, try to use the solemn process of this Court,” Justice Pushkarna observed in her order passed on October 6. “This is certainly not acceptable. This Court cannot allow the process of the Court to be misused and abused in this manner.”
The court noted that the petition was “clearly an attempt…to arm-twist the builder of the property in question for undesirable and dishonest considerations”. The petition was dismissed and a cost of Rs 50,000 was imposed on the petitioner, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association.
Zakir Nagar
THE PETITION: An NGO called ‘Delhi ki Galiyan NGO’ had filed a petition through one Farid Ali, seeking orders to demolish an alleged illegal and unauthorized construction on a 100-sq-yard plot in Zakir Nagar in Jamia Nagar, Okhla.
However, on October 13, the president of the NGO, Akbar Ali, told the court that no one had been authorised to file the petition, and that there was no one named Farid Ali among the members of the nonprofit. The court was also informed that the NGO’s letterhead had been “stolen and used unauthorisedly”.
The MCD, on the other hand, informed the court that it had taken requisite action against the property, and had sealed it.
WHAT HC SAID: The HC took a “very serious” view of the “deception and fraud being played upon this court”, and ordered the police to investigate the matter.
“[The]…filing of a petition by using name of an NGO, when the deponent has no concern with such NGO and has not been authorized by such NGO to file any petition in its name, is a gross misdeed and malpractice, which cannot be condoned or let off in a light manner,” Justice Pushkarna observed in her order.
“…When an unauthorized person files a petition of this nature for taking action against unauthorized construction, the said conduct is not only deceitful, but also misuse and abuse of the process of law,” the court said.
“When such solemn process of the court is misused by parties for their personal and unlawful gains and with ulterior and covert motives, the Courts have to come down heavily on such unscrupulous persons,” it said.
A cost of Rs 50,000 was imposed on the petitioner-individual.
Karol Bagh
THE PETITION: One Manorama Sakkerwal petitioned the court asking that the owner/ occupier and builder of a property in Karol Bagh be restrained from carrying out further construction on the premises.
Sakkerwal claimed that she resided in the property. However, the owner/ occupier, one Lalita Kumari, informed the court about an earlier round of litigation before a Delhi court on a similar cause of action, in which she had failed.
Lalita Kumari also told the HC that the property had been vacant for more than 20 years, and that she had filed a complaint against Sakkerwal and her son “who are trying to extort money” from her and others.
WHAT HC SAID: Justice Pushkarna took an adverse view of “suppression of material” by Sakkerwal, and recorded in her order that “clearly, the present writ petition has been filed with a view to solely misuse the process of this Court.” The motive of the petitioner was “oblique”, and “not for the purposes of seeking justice, for which the Courts of Law have been established”, the order, dated October 14, noted.
“The facts disclosed before this Court are very serious in nature and no party can be allowed to use the process of this Court for ulterior motives and with a view to extort money from another party on the basis that such party is carrying out unauthorized construction,” the court recorded. It said that while the court takes very serious note of unauthorised constructions, “the same does not give any leeway to any party to blackmail such persons who are raising such construction”.
This, the court said, “is clearly a gross abuse of the process of law”, and imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner.
Shaheen Bagh
THE PETITION: One Tauqir Alam had sought the intervention of the court against alleged illegal and unauthorised construction at a property in Shaheen Bagh. However, he did not reside in the vicinity of the said construction, and had no locus standi in the matter.
WHAT HC SAID: The court flagged the “concerning trend” in which “unscrupulous litigants” who have “no relation to a property are using untoward approaches to extort or blackmail persons who are raising unauthorized constructions”.
In an order passed on October 18, Justice Pushkarna recorded that “this Court in a number of petitions has already deprecated the conduct of parties wherein writ petitions against unauthorized constructions are filed with the sole motive to extort money.”
The “solemn process of this Court cannot be used by blackmailers for the purposes of extorting money from the persons who are undertaking unauthorized constructions…,” the HC said. It will not “aid and assist any unscrupulous person with a view to extort money from the persons who are raising such unauthorized construction, and who have no relation to the unauthorized construction in the subject property”, the court recorded in its order.
A cost of Rs 50,000 was imposed on the petitioner.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
