Delhi High Court
Dr. Rajender Yadav And Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 26 July, 2013
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~S-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% DECIDED ON: 26.07.2013
+ REVIEW PET.322/2013
CM APPL.9791, 9792/2013
IN W.P.(C) 3028/1997
DR. RAJENDER YADAV AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
1. The unsuccessful respondent in the writ petition has preferred
this review petition.
2. The review petitioner had approached the Court challenging an
order proposing to enter the property and to cancel the lease and
Review Pet.322/2013 in WP (C) 3028/1997 Page 1
re-enter the property. The orders impugned were 29.05.1997 and
30.06.1997. The order of 6.3.2012 disposing of the writ petition was
on agreed terms. The material part of the said order reads as follows:
"It is, thus agreed that this writ petition be disposed of with the
following directions:
i) The order dated 29.05.1997 and 30.06.1997 are set aside
and the petitioners will appear before the competent
authority on a date to be fixed by the said competent
authority.
ii) The case of the petitioners would be examined in view of
the aforesaid subsequent facts brought on record as well
as the policy for conversion and necessary steps taken
expeditiously for conversion from leasehold into freehold
as per the policy.
iii) It is made clear that since application of the petitioners
was made on 24.03.1993 as per application no.314218
on which date there was no determination of the lease
and the conversion charges deposited, the application
would be considered as per the rates prevalent for such
conversion at the relevant time and the then prevailing
policy.
iv) The relevant documents, if any, will be called for from
the petitioners and in case of any doubt, the petitioners
will be given a personal hearing.
v) Needless to say that if as per the then policy, the initial
amount of conversion charges would have to be
deposited as per the policy prevalent at the relevant time.
The circulars revered to by the petitioners in their
support as also the orders by this Court from time to time
would be kept in mind by the concerned authorities
including in LPA No.412/2007 decided on 28.07.2011.
Review Pet.322/2013 in WP (C) 3028/1997 Page 2
vi) The necessary action for conversion will be taken within
a maximum period of three months of receipt of this
order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving the
parties to bear their own costs."
3. The Review Petitioner, i.e., DDA urges that on approaching the
Supreme Court, liberty was granted to it to seek review in regard to
the certain factual aspects. The DDA, therefore, urges that a material
fact, i.e., that the writ petitioner's application for conversion had been
rejected was not brought to the notice of the Court. It is submitted that
even though the writ petitioner had sought for conversion of the
property from leasehold to freehold, that request was turned down on
29.10.1994 and the writ petitioner was communicated about this
aspect on 18.1.1995. It is also urged, in addition, that the Court
committed an error on the face of the record in not taking into account
the terms of the conversion policy and in setting aside the two notices
of 1997.
4. This Court has considered the submissions. The counter
affidavit filed by the DDA to the writ petition on 18.05.2006
interestingly is absolutely silent about the rejection of the writ
petitioner's conversion application. In this regard, the writ petitioner
has made the following averments at paragraph 3 (i) which is as
follows: -
"i) That the petitioners had also applied to the
Respondents in the year 1993-94 for conversion of lease
hold rights of the aforesaid property to free hold in
Review Pet.322/2013 in WP (C) 3028/1997 Page 3
accordance with conversion policy propounded by the
Respondent No.2 The petitioners had also deposited the
requisite conversion fee of Rs.28,155/- (Rupees Twenty
Eight Thousand One Hundred Fifty Five Only) by way of
challan on SBI dated 18/10.1991. The necessary
documents showing that the petitioners had applied for
conversion of the plot from lease hold rights to free hold
are attached as Annexure P-7."
5. In its reply, to the amended writ petition, which contained
above averments, the DDA stated as follows: -
"3 (i) In reply to the contents of the paragraph 3 (i) of
the writ petition it submitted that the property in question
cannot be allowed to be converted into free-hold as there
has been flagrant violation of terms and conditions of
lease deed since whole of the premises have been
converted in Nursing Home."
6. It would be evident that the DDA did not set up the case of the
rejection of the application for conversion on 29.10.1994. Even the
Review Petition does not enclose a copy of the order or even notings
of any such recorded documents. Furthermore, the Court notices that
the DDA does not, in any manner, address itself as to how the present
review petition is maintainable in view of the order dated 6.3.2012
which expressly records the agreement of all parties. This Court
further notices that the order dated 6.3.2012 further records that part
conversion fee of Rs.28,155/- as applicable at the relevant time had
been deposited - a fact uncontroverted by the DDA. Having regard to
these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that there is no error much
less on the face of the record warranting exercise of review
Review Pet.322/2013 in WP (C) 3028/1997 Page 4
jurisdiction.
7. Review Petition No.322/2013 and the connected applications
are dismissed but without any order as to costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
RAJIV SHAKDHER
(JUDGE)
JULY 26, 2013
/vks/
Review Pet.322/2013 in WP (C) 3028/1997 Page 5
