- ticket title
- Law Mantra invites application for Research Associates; Apply before 15th Nov, 2017
- UPES Litigation Workshop on Criminal Law: Practice, Procedure and Compliance [Dec 11 – 15, Dehradun]: Register by Nov 11
- Good Governance Yatra Travel Program for Change Agents [Dec 15-23, Delhi, UP, Bihar]: Apply by Oct 22
- Call for Papers Two Day National Seminar on Women’s Rights Issues &Challenges (Nov 8 & 9) Submit by Oct 24
- Supreme Court: App-Based Transport Service Providers Like Uber, Ola, Redbus Needed To Be Regulated To Ensure Safety Of Women Commuters.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY was the Appellant while M/S Trilok & Co. & Anr. were Respondents. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is a body which controls and owns huge tracts of land in Delhi. DDA is sometimes infamous with respect to its dealings with common citizens and especially poor persons who have no approach. The Court was hearing an Execution Second Appeal filed by the DDA, refusing to hand over possession of the suit plot to the decree holders, contending that the Authority was entitled to payment of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as ground rent.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Valmiki J.Mehta heard the matter in The Delhi High Court, scorned at the Delhi Development Authority for filing frivolous objections against execution of an earlier order.
He said that “I have already stated above the angst of this Court with respect to bodies such as the appellant/DDA and which think that they are law unto themselves. It is high time that strict action be taken against certain officers of public bodies like DDA who are harassing common/ordinary citizens of this country, and that too in spite of appellant/DDA having against it a judgment and decree dated 18.7.2012 which has become final.”
“Accordingly, it is seen that this appeal is a completely frivolous appeal. Appeal is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.25000/-, to be deposited with the website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in and these costs of Rs.25000/- shall be recovered by the appellant from the salary of that highest placed employee of the appellant who has taken the decision to object to the grant of possession of the suit plot to the successful decree holders without payment of the ground rent. “