Delhi High Court - Orders
Nath International Corporation vs Delhi Development Authority on 21 September, 2021
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~70(1)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13388/2018
NATH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Aman Abbi, Mrs. Preety
Makkar, Mr. Amer Vaid and Ms.
Ayushi Makkar, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Brahme, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 21.09.2021 The hearing has been conducted through video-conferencing. CM APPL. 32602/2021 (by petr. for directions)
1. The petitioner's application for conversion to freehold of property bearing no. D-86/1 and D-87, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi-110020 has been pending for the past 11 years. Directions were issued to DDA to grant the petitioner and to personal hearing and to duly consider the application. On 27.01.2021, the following order was passed:
"CM APPL. 2779/2021 (by applicant/petitioner for directions)
1. Despite a lapse of nearly 14 months since the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by this Court directing the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') to hear the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:23.09.2021 12:27:55 petitioner and pass appropriate orders, no worthwhile compliance has been made by it. The case having been first listed for compliance on 20.12.2019, was again listed for compliance on 26.02.2020; on the latter date, it was again adjourned to 25.03.2020 at the DDA's request. Nothing worthwhile has come forth from the DDA thereafter. The case could not be taken because of en bloc adjournments, hence this application.
2. In case the order dated 20.11.2019 is not complied with within a period of one week from today, an affidavit shall be filed by the Director, DDA, explaining therein the reasons for delay in compliance.
3. The issue of imposition of costs, etc would be considered on the next date.
..."
2. DDA heard the petitioner and say now that some documents are missing from their records. But that can hardly be an issue now as the application was supposed to have looked into the issue, a long time ago.
3. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicant/petitioner submits that the DDA had demanded Rs.20,34,832/- as conversion and misuse charges. The partners to the petitioner firm are about 76 & 78 years of age; they are keeping infirm health; in the current pandemic constrained times they are apprehensive about what the future holds for them; they would like closure of the case at the earliest; they are ready and willing to deposit the aforesaid amount, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, so that the DDA can carry out the conversion to freehold. They are also willing to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:23.09.2021 12:27:55 give an undertaking indemnifying the DDA against any third-party claims apropos such conversion.
4. Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant.
5. Let the Commissioner (LD) of the DDA look into the matter and a reply affidavit be filed in 2 weeks, with his/her approval.
6. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, let the aforesaid monies be deposited in the court, which shall be kept in an interest-bearing FDR, subject to further orders.
7. List on 29.11.2021.
8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 RW Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:23.09.2021 12:27:55