TEAM CODE CODE:

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF

WRIT PETITION No.___/2023

J. THULI……………………………….(PETITIONER)

V.

K. S BAKSHI & ORS…………………………..(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE COURT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Speaker 1: K. John Kenneth

Speaker 2: Shri Sai Ram

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………….3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………….4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………….…. 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………..…..6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………………………………………….....7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………………….…8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: whether the transferee should register the legal documents as mandatory to
receive the benefits and protections provided under Section 53A of the TP Act.

ISSUE 2: Whether the petitioner can claim criminal remedy through Writ petition?

PRAYER …………………………………………………………….…………………14

2
 ABBREVIATION EXTENSION

& And

Sec section

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Report

Anr. Another

Art. Article

assn. association

const. Constitution

ed. Edition

etc etcetera

Hon’ble Honorable

SC Supreme court

i.e. That is

No Number

V. Versus

Ors. others

3
A) CASES:
1. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019)
2. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2011)
3. Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007)
4. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2020)
5. Katikara Chintamani Dora v. T. Anasuyamma
6. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West
Bengal (2010)
7. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
9. Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980)
10. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors v. The State of Kerala & Ors.
11. Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu [1972]
12. Saint Shri Asharam Bapu vs State on 1 October, 2013
13. S. Ananthakrishnan vs The State Of Madras
14. Shri Asharam Babu v. State
B) LEGISLATIONS
1. Constitution of India, 1950
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
4. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
5. The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1988

C) BOOKS
1. Constitution of India, P.M.Bakshi
2. Constitutional Law of India, H.M.Seervai
3. M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed. 2014). VOL. 10,
4. Durga Das Basu: Commentary on the Constitution of India, (8th Ed. 2011)

4
The counsel humbly submits this memorandum of Petitioner before the Honourable High
Court of Delhi. The counsel has the right to reserve to argue for this case. The jurisdiction of
this Honourable High Court of Delhi has been invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution
by the Petitioner.

Article 32 in The Constitution Of Bharat:

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and (
2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution

5
1. In 2021, J.TULI herein referred to as “petitioner” entered into an MOU with one
MR.C.RAVINDER (deceased), herein referred to as “owner”. The MOU was signed
between the two parties to transfer the possession of the deceased property to the
petitioner, the said MOU is not registered. The said property was purchased by the
owner for a sum of Rs.7,20,000,on the said property M/s RMK Pharmacy is situated.

2. The said property was not transferred to the petitioner in light of the fact that the
deceased's family contracted with M/s ROCK CONTRACTORS PRIVATE
LTD,herein referred to as the “builder”, rather the said MOU was signed between the
owner and the petitioner upon failure of construction by the builder.

3. On a later date the petitioner spotted one MR.ARAVIND SINGH at the premise of the
property. The petitioner confronted the person, followed by police arriving at the
scene and peace was established. Upon further enquiry of the police it was found that
the both were quarreling over a particular schedule of the land. The police requested
the petitioner to show documents in relevance to ownership over the land, and the
petitioner showed the MOU. Upon further inspection it was discovered that the said
land was sealed earlier as per the directives of the monitoring committee established
by the hon'ble supreme court and de-sealed in the year 2022 by the MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF DELHI.

4. After a confrontation between the police and the petitioner, the police sealed the said
land that was in the petitioner's possession ,no action was taken against the trespasser.
At the same time alleged negotiations have been going on between the builder and the
petitioner over the said land,but the petitioner claims that the builder has been
threatening and used defamatory and abusive remarks against the petitioner.

5. On light of these events the petitioner requested a vigilance investigation against

police officers who had sealed his property in a complaint to the police commissioner.
The petitioner also sought the police commissioner's permission in filing an FIR
against the builder u/s 294,504 & 506 of the Indian penal code. The petitioner had not

6
found any justice from the police after receiving his complaints and has thus
approached the hon’ble high court under writ jurisdiction.

7
1. Whether the transferee should register the legal documents as mandatory to receive
the benefits and protections provided under Section 53A of the TP Act

2. Whether the petitioner can claim criminal remedy through Writ petition?

8
Issue 1: Whether the transferee should register the legal documents as mandatory to
receive the benefits and protections provided under Section 53A of the TP Act

It is humbly stated that registration of legal documents is not mandatory for the transferee to
avail benefits and protections under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which
grants rights to the transferee in possession of the property based on an unregistered
agreement for sale.

Issue 2: Whether the petitioner can claim criminal remedy through Writ petition?

It is humbly stated that the petitioner can claim criminal remedy through a Writ petition as
there's evidence of police misconduct, abuse of power, or negligence in addressing criminal
complaints, allowing the court to intervene and direct appropriate action against the
concerned authorities or individuals.

9
Issue 1: Whether the transferee should register the legal documents as mandatory to
receive the benefits and protections provided under Section 53A of the TP Act

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides protection to transferees in
possession of immovable property under an unregistered agreement. The section safeguards
the rights of the transferee even if the transfer is not made by a registered document, subject
to certain conditions. However, the question of whether registration of legal documents is
mandatory for the transferee to receive the benefits and protections under Section 53A has
been a subject of legal interpretation. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019) 3 SCC
698 In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the protection of Section 53A is
available to a transferee who is in possession of the property and has performed his part of
the contract, irrespective of the document's registration. The Court highlighted that Section
53A does not mandate the registration of the agreement and protects the rights of the
transferee based on possession and fulfillment of obligations. Under Section 53A of the
Transfer of Property Act (TP Act) in India, a person who has entered into possession of a
property, under an agreement to transfer the property, but the transfer hasn’t been completed
due to the absence of proper registration, still possesses certain rights. Section 53A provides
protection to the transferee in possession, even if the transfer of property hasn't been
completed through a registered deed. It states that if a person contracts to transfer for
consideration any immovable property by writing signed by the transferor, and the transferee
has taken possession of the property, then the transferor shall not revoke or disturb the
transferee's possession unless:

1. The contract is in writing.

2. It signifies the intended transfer.
3. The transferee has taken possession of the property.

The section safeguards the possession of the transferee who has performed his part of the
contract, i.e., taken possession of the property based on a valid agreement. However, it
doesn’t negate the requirement of registration under the Registration Act, 1908. Registration
remains necessary to confer legal validity and completeness to the transfer of immovable

10
property. In the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2011), the
Supreme Court held that a person claiming protection under Section 53A of the TP Act must
prove that the conditions mentioned in the section are fulfilled, namely a written agreement,
consideration, intention to transfer, and actual possession taken by the transferee. In the
present scenario involving Mr. J. Tuli, the possession claimed under the MoU may provide
him protection under Section 53A of the TP Act. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 provides protection to a transferee of immovable property who is in possession of
the property without obtaining formal registration of the document. The section grants rights
to such a transferee against the transferor or any person claiming under him. However, the
requirement of registration varies depending on the nature of the transaction and the specific
circumstances of the person. Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007): In this case, the
Supreme Court held that Section 53A does not mandate registration of the document to claim
the benefits. The provision protects the possession of a transferee even if the agreement to
transfer the property is not registered, provided that the transferee has performed his part of
the contract and taken possession of the property. While in the case of Ravinder Kaur
Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2020) The Punjab and Haryana High Court in this case emphasized
that Section 53A operates independently of the requirement of registration under the
Registration Act. As long as the transferee has performed his obligations under an
unregistered agreement for immovable property and is in possession of the property, they can
claim rights and defenses under Section 53A. This section provides protection to a transferee
of immovable property who has taken possession of the property based on an unregistered
agreement. It protects the transferee's possession even if the agreement is not registered. In
the case of Katikara Chintamani Dora v. T. Anasuyamma, The Andhra Pradesh High
Court held that registration of a document is not mandatory to enforce the rights granted
under Section 53A. The section seeks to safeguard the possession of the transferee who has
performed his part of the agreement by taking possession, even if the agreement itself is
unregistered. Therefore, Mr. J. Tuli, having taken possession based on the MoU with Mr. C.
Ravinder, could potentially claim protection under Section 53A of the TP Act, regardless of
the registration status of the agreement.

11
Issue 2: Whether the petitioner can claim criminal remedy through Writ petition?

The petitioner can indeed seek criminal remedy through a writ petition. Writ petitions are
primarily known for addressing violations or grievances related to fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution of India. However, they can also be used to address other issues,
including cases where there is an abuse of power by authorities or when there is a failure on
the part of law enforcement agencies to take appropriate action. The Indian legal system
provides for the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto.
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
(2010) In this case, the Supreme Court held that the power of the High Courts under Article
226 of the Constitution can be invoked for investigating into an alleged offence when the
investigating agencies fail to conduct a proper investigation or remain inactive. The Court
highlighted that the purpose of a writ of mandamus is to ensure that public authorities
perform their duties and take appropriate action. These writs are instruments available to the
High Courts and the Supreme Court to safeguard the rights of citizens and ensure justice.
When there is a clear violation of fundamental rights or when statutory rights are not being
upheld, a petitioner can approach the High Court through a writ petition seeking relief. For
instance, if there is evidence of police misconduct, abuse of power, or negligence in handling
a criminal complaint, a petitioner can approach the court through a writ petition seeking
appropriate action against the concerned authorities. In this case, where Mr. J. Tuli alleges
misconduct by the police and seeks action against individuals who have allegedly made
derogatory statements and threats against him, he may have grounds to approach the High
Court via a writ petition. If there is a failure on the part of the police to address his complaints
or if they have acted in an arbitrary or biased manner, the petitioner can seek relief through a
writ petition, requesting the court to direct the authorities to take necessary action in
accordance with the law. It's important to note that the court will examine the merit of the
case, evaluate the evidence presented, and determine if there is a violation of rights or a
failure in the due process of law before granting any relief through the writ petition. The
petitioner must provide substantial evidence to support their claims and demonstrate that the
situation warrants the court's intervention. The Indian legal system allows for Writ petitions
to seek redressal not only in civil matters but also in certain criminal cases where there is an
infringement of fundamental rights or where there has been an abuse of power by public
authorities. The case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) recognized that a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, a form of writ that ensures the release of an unlawfully detained person, can be

12
sought for a criminal offense. The petitioner, Mr. J. Tuli, seeks criminal remedies via a writ
petition. In the Indian legal system, the High Courts have the power to issue writs under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While writs are typically sought for enforcement of
fundamental rights or for administrative actions, the courts have recognized instances where
criminal remedies can also be pursued through writ jurisdiction, especially when there is a
failure or miscarriage of justice due to the actions of public authorities. One pertinent case
supporting the availability of criminal remedies through a writ petition is the landmark
judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). In this case, the Supreme Court of
India interpreted Article 21, emphasizing that the right to life and personal liberty
encompasses a wide range of rights, and any deprivation of such rights must be in accordance
with established procedures established by law. The Court held that the protection of this
right extends to fair procedures and reasonable opportunities, even in criminal proceedings.
This decision expanded the scope of Article 21 beyond mere procedural safeguards to include
substantive rights. Furthermore, in a similar context, the case of Hussainara Khatoon v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) acknowledged the power of the High Courts under
Article 226 to address violations of fundamental rights, including those arising from delayed
and prolonged detention without trial, thereby extending the scope of the writ jurisdiction to
remedy injustices in criminal matters. These cases highlight that while writ jurisdiction
primarily deals with administrative and fundamental rights issues, the courts have recognized
the importance of providing relief in criminal matters, especially when there is a failure of
justice or infringement of fundamental rights due to actions of public authorities. Therefore,
in cases where there is a violation of fundamental rights or procedural irregularities impacting
criminal remedies, the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, can intervene to provide
appropriate relief, including the initiation of criminal proceedings or directing proper
investigations into alleged offenses.

13
Wherefore, it is humbly prayed to this Hon’ble court that in the light of issues raised,
arguments advanced and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1.
AND/OR
Pass any such order, direction or relief as it may deem fit in order to uphold the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the respondents shall forever humbly pray.

All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted

Sd/-
Counsel for the petitioner

14