Delhi High Court
R.N.Dhawan vs Uoi &Ors. on 23 March, 2009
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 23.03.2009
+ W.P. (C) 8137/2007
R.N.DHAWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Chaudhary, Advocate.
versus
UOI &ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate.
Mr. Saroj Bidawat, Adv. for Resp-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
%
1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to convert the
lease hold in relation to his property being No.11, Shiv Mandir Marg, Jal Vihar
Road, Lajpat Nagar into free hold.
3. The facts necessary to decide the case are that the lease deed was
executed pursuant to an allotment, made of the suit property on 5.5.1973,
WP(C) No.8137/2007 Page 1
by the office of the Settlement Commissioner, to the petitioner. The
documents were registered later on 1.6.1973. The management of the said
property was handed over to the Land & Development Office (L&DO).
Apparently, the terms of the initial lease deed were amended by
supplementary lease deed dated 26.11.1973. Clause 1 (vi) of the original
lease deed dated 5.5.1973 read as follows :
"Not without the written consent of the Chief
Commissioner, Delhi, to carry on or permit to be carried
on, on the said land and buildings erected thereon during
the said lease any trade or business whatsoever or use the
same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other
than that of a "double storeyed building consisting of one
or two residential flats in all, with a barsati on top, as may
be approved for the locality or as provided in the building
already erected on the said land;"
4. It is common ground that the L&DO introduced policies for conversion
of the leases administered by it - and in which the Central Government was
the lessor - from time to time. The first of these schemes of conversion was
published in 1992. Similar schemes were formulated and published later.
On 24.6.2003, the L&DO published a scheme under which the petitioner
applied for conversion of the concerned plot. It is contended that the
conversion fee of Rs.1,45,364/- was also paid.
5. The Supplementary deed (referred to earlier) had deleted the
reference of residence in the following terms: -
"That in the principal deed in clause No.I (vi) on page No.3
of the principal deed the word residence shall stand deleted
and the premises shall not be used for any purpose other
than the purpose of business only"
WP(C) No.8137/2007 Page 2
6. The petitioner contends that despite his having complied with the
terms of the L&DO's policy, the respondents displayed inaction and are not
passing consequential orders for conversion of the property. The petitioner
also refers to a letter dated 4.8.2006 whereby the Central Government
(through the L&DO) clarified that the word "residence" had been omitted
from the supplementary lease deed for the period, as the allotment was for
the purpose of running a fuel deport, which is a business activity.
7. The L&DO's contention is two fold. It submits that Fuel Depot is not
"commercial" and hence cannot be considered for conversion under the
head "commercial property". It is submitted that Fuel Depot can be
converted from lease hold only after conversion in to commercial property.
It is further contended that a proposal was made by the DDA for use of four
Fuel Depots for its purposes. The L&DO has referred to and produced a
letter dated 18.7.2006 by the DDA requesting the handing over of such Fuel
Depots, to it.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the
documents as well as pleadings carefully. The facts pertaining to allotment
of plot to the petitioner, execution of lease deed on 5.5.1973; and execution
of the supplementary lease deed on 26.11.1973 are undisputed. The L&DO
also does not deny having stated in response to the query under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 made by the petitioner, as follows:
"No.L&DO/PS-II/979 dated 4.8.2006
"To,
WP(C) No.8137/2007 Page 3
Shri R.N. Dhawan
K-II/38A, Lajpat Nagar
New Delhi - 110 024.
Sub: Application under RTI Act, 2005 in respect of Property
No.11, Shiv Mandir Marg, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi - 110 024.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter dated 12.6.2006 on the
above subject and to say that since the re-development plan of
the area is under consideration and not finalized, the request of
conversion was not examined.
As regards supplementary lease deed for the property word
"Residence" was deleted because the allotment was made for
Fuel Depot which is Business Activity."
9. This Court finds insubstancial the respondents' plea put forward now
that the property is not commercial property. The supplementary lease
deed expressly deleted all reference to residential use of the property. The
letter dated 4.8.2006 also expressely stated that the petitioners' allotment
was made for a business activity. In these circumstances, the insistence of
the L&DO that the property is not commercial, is not only unacceptable, but
also misconceived. As far as the other impediment sought to be put forward
namely, the DDA's requisition is concerned, the L&DO's position is that
matter is engaging attention of both the agencies.
10. The letter of the DDA upon which the L&DO places reliance was written
on 18.7.2006. No effort has been made to show as to why any decision was
arrived at. It is not as if the L&DO requires permission of the DDA to convert
the property - concededly the title to the property is that of the L&DO, who
is administering the land on behalf of the President as a paramount lessor.
WP(C) No.8137/2007 Page 4
In the circumstances, the existence or pendency of a request for requisition
of the Fuel Depot - i.e. the suit property, for purposes of the DDA itself
cannot be construed as an impediment in processing of the conversion
application. At any rate, there is no restriction on the processing of such
applications by the L&DO in its policy; the conversion application too cannot
be rejected on such grounds as is evident on a textual reading of para 20 of
the brochure pertaining to conversion from lease hold into free hold
published by the L&DO.
11. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the L&DO's objections
cannot be sustained in law; they are arbitrary. A direction is accordingly
issued to the respondents to process the petitioner's application in
accordance with the Scheme earlier existing when he applied for conversion,
of the property and after ensuring completion of necessary formalities issue
the order of conversion and take all consequential steps within eight weeks
from today.
12. The writ Petition is allowed in the above terms, but without any order
as to costs.
Order dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
MARCH 23, 2009
/vd/
WP(C) No.8137/2007 Page 5
