Supreme Court - Daily Orders
S. K. Bahl vs Uday Pratap Singh on 18 November, 2019
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
1
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7278/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-10-2018
in CONC No. 475/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
Delhi)
S. K. BAHL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UDAY PRATAP SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 39279/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 18-11-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.M. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. P.M. Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Civil Writ Petition No.4693/2003 was filed by the present petitioner challenging the refusal on part of the respondents to convert property bearing No.135, Block K-1, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi from lease-hold to free-hold.
Signature Not Verified
After considering rival submissions, the Single Judge of the Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Date: 2019.11.21 18:19:11 IST Reason: High Court passed following directions on 18.11.2003:- 2
“In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Director (Lands) on 8.12.2003 at 3.00P.M.. The petitioners will be informed about the various charges liable to be deposited by them and on the petitioners depositing all the charges and subject to confirmation by the DDA of the stoppage of misuse, the property shall be converted into freehold in joint name without any sub-division. The conveyance deed shall be executed within a maximum period of two months of the petitioner complying with the said requirements for conversion.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” Thus, after having deposited the charges, which were required to be deposited by the petitioner, the property would be converted into free-hold in the joint names without any sub-division and the conveyance deed was to be executed after compliance of all the requisite requirements by the petitioner. By communication dated 9.3.2005, the petitioner was called upon to deposit amounts mentioned therein. The relevant portion of said communication was:-
“In compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in the above referred matter, you are requested to deposit a sum of Rs.1,17,87,223/- on account of the following:
(In Rs.)
1. Misuse charges (Provisionally) 31.11.90 to 73,89,895.00 16.9.2002
2. Restoration charges @ Rs.300/- psq.m. 31,350.00
3. De-sealing Charges 15,000.00
4. Addl.Charges/Maintenance Charges 75,000.00 16.9.2002 to 8.12.2003 (Provisional)
5. Unearned Increase Charges 42,35,222.00
6. Ground Rent upto 24.1.05 22,695.00 3 7 In. on Ground Rent upto 31.12.04 18,061.00 Total Rs. 1,17,87,223.00 (Provisional) The copy of challan in token of deposit above amount may be submitted within 15 days so that case for restoration of Property No.K1/135, CR Park may be processed further. As regards, conversion of property from lease-hold to freehold, you are advised to procure the relevant form which is available on the Sale Counter of DDA, D Block, Vikas Sadan and may submit the same after completing all the formalities prescribed in it.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
Yours faithfully, (Asstt. Director(OSB)” In further challenge raised against the demand raised by DDA, the unearned increased amount of Rs.42,35,222/- was set aside by the Division Bench as under:
“(i) Demand towards unearned increase shall be withdrawn by DDA.
(ii) Upon all owners having purchased interest in the land comprising Plot No.135, Block K-1, Chittranjan Park, New Delhi, applying for conversion of the lease-hold tenure into free-hold tenure and paying the misuse charges together with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date when demand was raised till payment was made and additionally paying the conversion charges + 33.333% thereof and such other amounts as are payable to DDA as per demand letter dated March 09, 2005; with ground rent and interest thereon updated till when application for conversion is filed, upon satisfaction by DDA to the genuineness of documents submitted, the conveyance deed would be executed in favour of the applicants conveying free-hold tenure in their names of the plot in question.
(iii)With respect to the misuse charges and past dues, DDA would be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum 4 from the date when the respective amounts became due and payable and till when payment was/is made.
(iv) With respect to the amounts paid by the appellant or any other purchaser(s) of part interest in the land, adjustment would be given by DDA and if any excess amount is found paid the appellant as also the co-
applicants would be entitled to a refund thereof with 9% interest per annum.
No costs.” It is accepted that as against the total sum demanded in said communication of 9.3.2005, after deducting the element of un-earned increase, rest of the amount has been deposited by the petitioner.
It is also submitted by the petitioner that the amount presently lying in deposit is in excess of the required amount, which is disputed by the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having complied with the requisition and having deposited, the amounts required to be deposited, the conversion has not been effected nor any conveyance deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner.
Ms. Garima Prashad, learned advocate submitted that there are certain infirmities which have not yet been cleared by the petitioners, namely:-
(a) The lease deed was cancelled in the year 1992 and the cancellation of lease deed has not yet been recalled. Said lease is required to be restored first.
(b) Though conversion charges and all the requisite amounts have been deposited, no application has been preferred 5 by the entire body of co-owners who have stepped into the shoes of the original lessees namely Shishir Kumar Dey and Jyotsna Dey.
(c) The present petition has been filed on behalf of only one co-owner. If the petitioner is representing the cause of all co-owners, he must produce requisite power of attorney on behalf of all of them or all the co-owners must jointly prefer the application.
The first submission raised by Ms. Garima Prashad is completely unsustainable. The directions issued by the High Court were quite clear that upon deposit, the respondents were to effectuate conversion and execute the conveyance deed. We, therefore, reject the first submission raised by Ms. Garima Prasad.
In so far as the other two submissions are concerned, we give three weeks’ time to the petitioner to place all the concerned documents before the authorities. The authorities are directed to act in terms of the directions issued by the High Court within two weeks.
List for further consideration on 13.1.2020.
(INDU MARWAH) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER