Vijender Kumar Sanghi vs D.D.A. & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 3878 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 10th August, 2011
+                               W.P.(C) 13192/2005

          VIJENDER KUMAR SANGHI                 ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. Rahul Gupta & Mr. Shekhar
                               Gupta, Adv.

                                     Versus
         D.D.A. & ANR                                       ..... Respondents
                            Through:      Ms. Renuka Arora, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may        Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The writ petition was filed impugning the demand dated 7 th July,

2005 of the respondent DDA of Rs 5,71,663/- on the petitioner on account

of use of property No. G-2, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi for purposes other

than specified in the perpetual lease of land underneath the said property

and as a pre-condition for conversion of the Leasehold Rights in the land

underneath the property into Freehold. The petitioner also seeks mandamus

for conversion of the Leasehold Rights into Freehold.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings have been

completed.

3. Misuse charges were claimed by the respondent DDA for the reason

of use of a portion of the property for the purpose of office of Training

Organization for Research & Counseling in Health (TORCH Mission). It is

the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the said TORCH

Mission is an NGO. While the counsel for the petitioner contends that the

property was let out to the said M/s TORCH Mission for residential

purpose only, the respondent DDA in its counter affidavit has pleaded that

the misuse was reported by the field staff during an inspection of the

property.

4. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the

aforesaid factual controversy as to whether the property was being misused

or not can be adjudicated without examination and cross examination of

witnesses i.e. the tenant who was admittedly in control and possession of

the property at the relevant time and the field staff which had reported such

misuser.

5. The counsel for the petitioner rather than responding to above, at

this stage states that the petitioner has applied for consideration of his

application for freehold conversion in accordance with the changed policy

and the said matter is under consideration of respondent DDA. He seeks

the disposal of the present petition with a direction to the respondent DDA

to consider the representation of the petitioner under the new Policy of 26 th

March, 2010.

6. The counsel for the respondent DDA states that her instructions are

that the representation of the petitioner is being considered in accordance

with new Policy and in accordance with law.

7. The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the

respondent DDA to communicate its decision on the representation

aforesaid of the petitioner on or before 31st October, 2011.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 10, 2011 pp