* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: April 12, 2012
+ LPA 5/2012
LALIT MOHAN MADHAN ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Advocate instructed by
Mr.Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocate.
versus
LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Sangeeta Chandra,
Advocate for DDA.
WITH
+ LPA 6/2012
LALIT MOHAN MADHAN ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Advocate instructed by
Mr.Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocate.
Versus
DDA & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Sangeeta Chandra,
Advocate for DDA.Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with
Mr.Akshay Chandra, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. With reference to the order dated March 15, 2012, learned counsel for the DDA has produced for our perusal the latest ‘Scheme of Conversion from Lease-hold System of Land Tenure into Free-hold’. The same is effective from March 31, 2011.
2. The revised policy permits floor wise conversion of lease-hold tenure to free-hold tenure. Prima facie read, the policy does not permit lease-hold tenure to be converted into free-hold tenure in a manner where the single identity of a plot gets divided into two separate identities.
3. Having noted as aforesaid, we now deal with the issues raised in the two appeals.
4. Two writ petitions filed by the appellant stand disposed of by a singular order dated August 30, 2011 and this explains the two appeals before us.
5. Late Shri S.C.Goel and Shri Om Prakash Gupta were the joint lessees under DDA, having a lease-hold tenure in respect of a single entity plot bearing Municipal No.B-1/26, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
6. It appears that by consent, the two co-lessees, constructed a building on the plot, where on the ground floor and the first floor, both peacefully resided; one in the front portion and the other at the rear on both floors.
7. Appellant Lalit Mohan Madhan claims to have entered into an Agreement to Sell pertaining to the share of Shri S.C.Goel in the undivided property and has an authorization in his favour under a Power of Attorney and is also claiming a right under a Will. These are the usual documents executed in Delhi to transfer title in immoveable property.
8. Though not recognized by the Transfer of Property Act, but became the reality of life in Delhi, and thus compelled the Government to recognize such transfers and legalize them. Way back in the year 1992, a conversion policy was notified as per which lease-hold tenures became entitled to be converted into free-hold tenures upon payment of a conversion fee. The policy recognized such kind of transfers under Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney; to regularize the same, the policy envisaged that on the transferee paying 33-1/3% more on the conversion fee, lease-hold tenure would be converted into free-hold tenure directly in the name of the transferee.
9. With respect to the transfer effected by Shri S.C.Goel, it appears that taking cognizance thereof, DDA has determined the lease and re-entered the property; but only on paper.
10. The said action taken by DDA has been challenged by way of a suit filed by Shri Om Prakash Gupta in which the legal heirs of deceased late Shri S.C.Goel as also DDA have been impleaded as defendants.
11. Needless to state, in the suit filed, the issue of legality of action taken by DDA would be debated upon.
12. Appellant filed two writ petitions as noted hereinabove. In the first writ petition he challenged the order determining the lease. In the second writ petition, he sought a mandamus that DDA be directed to convert the lease-hold tenure into free-hold tenure in respect of entire property.
13. The writ petitions have been dismissed holding that the issue raised therein was the subject matter of the suit filed by Shri Om Prakash Gupta.
14. Suffice would it be to state that the perpetual sub-lease deed executed by DDA in favour of Om Prakash Gupta and S.C.Goel has been determined and the action has been challenged in the suit by Om Prakash Gupta. Till the order determining the lease remains, there is no question of DDA being directed to convert the lease-hold tenure into a free-hold tenure. Further, the policy requires the co-allottees to sign an application seeking conversion and Om Prakash Gupta is not willing to do the needful.
15. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the issue has to be sorted out in the suit filed by Om Prakash Gupta, which suit is a prior litigation.
16. The appeals are dismissed but without any order as to costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
