New Delhi : A court here Monday directed the Delhi Police commissioner and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to investigate and prevent illegal sale of government land by private individuals.
Additional Sessions Judge Sanjeev Jain issued the direction while dismissing the plea of a south Delhi resident, Jai Singh, who challenged a magisterial order July 6, 2014 discharging five man — Raghubir Singh, Ranbir Singh Lakh Ram, Girdhari Singh and Umed Singh — accused in a fraudulent land deal case.
“…I may observe that from the record prima facie, parties in collusion with each other entered into the sale agreement of land which was already acquired by the government,” the judge said observing that during course of arguments, it was alleged on behalf of the accused that complainant (Jai) had already sold some portion of land to different sellers.
The court said: “At the first look it appears that probably all the parties i.e seller and purchaser intentionally and knowingly entered into sale agreement to defeat the purpose of land acquisition, to perpetuate the unauthorized encroachment and to cheat other innocent purchaser.”
The court further added that it is a matter of detailed investigation by the authorities concerned.
“In order to protect the interest of bona fide owner i.e DDA/government and to prevent any illegal transaction by anyone in respect of land in question, let copy of order be sent to commissioner of police, Delhi, as well as to vice president, DDA, for information, record and necessary action (if any),” the court said.
According to Jai Singh, he purchased land measuring 97 bighas 15 biswas in village Rajpur Khurd in south Delhi from five accused.
Jai Singh has alleged that accused cheated him by misrepresenting the fact that the order of land acquisition had been quashed by the court and sold him a government property. He told court that he was induced to pay amount of Rs.56 lakhs.
The sessions court upheld the magisterial court order and said: “I have no doubt that complainant (Jai) was well aware about the acquisition of land but still he entered in a deal to purchase land from the accused persons which was not owned by them at the time of transaction.”
The court added that Jai Singh cannot take benefit of his own wrong and his plea of mis-representation or inducement appears to be false and after thought.