Occupying DHFL without Apex Legal Sanction

Occupying DHFL without Apex Legal Sanction

Posted on 05/05/2024 (GMT 06:33 hrs)

One person is trying to get hold of my house. However, the whole subject of ANYONE occupying my house is under adjudication or sub judice or awaiting final verdict in the court of law. I have a single question in such a situation: can that person manage to bypass the law and occupy my house with the help of money, political connections and muscle power? He surely can, but ought (morally/ethically) he to do that, given the express provisions of law?

The immediate answer will be: of course not. Since if he does, he will be answerable to the judiciary as a TRESPASSER. He will have to undergo the lengthy judicial process and the verdict is likely to go against him and in favour of my entitlement over the house, since he possessed my house in terms of “adverse possession”! Such state of possession violates the Tort Law. Has he taken the consent of the previous owner of the house, who were willing to pay the full amount to all the creditors? Did he take the consent from the DHFL victims, who are the affected party due to this hostile takeover?

What he encroachingly took could be legitimately taken back by its rightful claimants!

The statute of limitations expires in accordance with Article 64, 12 years after the date of possession. The well-known maxim that a restriction prohibits just the remedy but does not invalidate the title is an exception provided by Section 27, thus it must be read in conjunction with Section 27. SOURCE: Article 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act in adverse possession VIEW HERE ⤡

Moreover, “Article 64 and Article 65 read with Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides the limitation period of 12 years to claim the possession back from adverse possessor. After the expiry of these 12 years, the adverse possessor gets the right to acquire the title of the property and owner loses his title. By the virtue of Article 112 of the Act, the government gets the period of 30 years to claim the possession back from adverse possessor.” VIEW HERE ⤡

The concept of tort law is to redress a wrong done to a person and provide relief from the wrongful acts of others, usually by awarding monetary damages as compensation. The original intent of tort is to provide full compensation for proved harms.

The same has happened with Mr. Ajay Piramal in forcibly occupying the DHFL by ignoring the NCLT first verdict (19/05/2021) and the NCLAT second verdict (27/01/2022). Each time, he has attained speedy justice in the form of stay orders (which were posed by him as “blanket” stay orders!) with the help of the ruling political party, the BJP.

The most certain proof in favour of the DHFL case still being under the Supreme Court of India’s “Pending” list is that the DHFL victims cannot still approach the OHCHR, United Nations, until and unless these domestic remedies are exhausted. Since they are not exhausted whilst Mr. Piramal claims to have acquired the DHFL in as early as September 2021, his status as an “owner” remains disputed and subject to legal review.

If Mr. Piramal comes ahead to the DHFL victims and says that he “is” owning the DHFL on the basis of the NCLT’s approval of his company’s resolution plan, we would further like to question: how can someone acquire a profitable property only depending on the LOWEST QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY’s verdict? What about the higher courts and the apex court far up in the judicial hierarchy? Isn’t Mr. Piramal’s occupation susceptible to review by this bodies before he is in a position to claim ownership?

How can Mr. Piramal dare to occupy the house of DHFL like this? Isn’t he accountable for his questionable deed?