Monica Burman vs Union Of India
2009 Latest Caselaw 3005 Del

7.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 4139/2007
                                      Date of decision: 4th August, 2009

       MONICA BURMAN                              ..... Petitioner
                           Through Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Advocate.
                     versus
       UOI                                 ..... Respondent
                           Through Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

       1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?
       2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?

                                 ORDER

%

1. The petitioner had applied for conversion of leasehold rights

into freehold in respect of property No. 43A, Prithviraj Road, measuring

2280 square yards. The application was filed on 21st September, 1999

with deposit of Rs.25,33,000/- in terms of the scheme for conversion as

contained in letter/circular dated 28th June, 1999. The application

remained pending with the respondents till 2007, when the petitioner filed

the present writ petition.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid

facts are admitted. It is not denied that the application for conversion was

filed and the conversion fee has also been deposited. The only plea taken

W.P. (C) No. 4139/2007 Page 1 by the respondents is that the case of the petitioner for conversion has

been kept in abeyance as a decision has to be taken on the issue of

treating constructions carried out at site in question as group housing and

the said decision has not been taken. The relevant portion of the counter

affidavit reads as under:-

" In reply to the contents of sub-para (J) of paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold is pending with the office of the respondent for the decision to be taken on the issue of treating the constructions carried out at site, in question, as Group Housing or not which is yet to be taken."

3. In view of the said contention, a detailed order was passed on

23rd July, 2009 recording as under:-

"4. The petitioner has already waited for about nine years since the application was filed. The wait cannot be endless and decision has to be taken.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that the property consists of a bungalow and there is no group housing complex at the site. The plea that the construction carried out in the property is for group housing is incorrect and false. The th petitioner by letter dated 8 February, 2007 has clarified that additional construction was done as per plan sanctioned vide resolution No. 14 dated 7th May, 1983 and only one residence exists in the property and no group housing scheme has been sanctioned and the petitioner has not made any application for sanction of group housing scheme.

6. The respondents will produce the original file in this Court on the next date. The W.P. (C) No. 4139/2007 Page 2 respondents will also file within five days an affidavit clearly stating that on what basis statement has been made in the counter affidavit that the construction on the property at the site is for group housing."

4. The respondents have produced the original file today in the

Court. It is admitted that the petitioner had not made any application for

conversion of the property into group housing. It is also admitted that the

land rates for conversion stand notified and have not been suspended.

5. It is not understood why the application for conversion filed by

the petitioner has been kept in abeyance as the petitioner had not made

any application for group housing scheme. The application for conversion

has remained pending for the last ten years. The wait cannot continue

indefinitely and a decision has to be taken.

6. In these circumstances, direction/mandamus is issued to the

respondent to dispose of the conversion application in accordance with law

within a period of four weeks from the date copy of this order is received.

The petitioner will be entitled to costs of Rs.10,000/-, which will be paid to

the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date copy of this

order is received.

Dasti to the counsel for the respondent.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       AUGUST 04, 2009
       VKR

W.P. (C) No. 4139/2007                                                  Page 3