Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4139/2007
Date of Decision: 4th August, 2009 MONICA BURMAN ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Meenakshi Singh, Advocate.
Through Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? O R D E R %
1. The petitioner had applied for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold in respect of property No. 43A, Prithviraj Road, measuring 2280 square yards. The application was filed on 21st September, 1999 with deposit of Rs.25,33,000/- in terms of the scheme for conversion as contained in letter/circular dated 28th June, 1999. The application remained pending with the respondents till 2007, when the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid facts are admitted. It is not denied that the application for conversion was filed and the conversion fee has also been deposited. The only plea taken 2009:DHC:3076 W.P. (C) No. 4139/2007 Page 2 by the respondents is that the case of the petitioner for conversion has been kept in abeyance as a decision has to be taken on the issue of treating constructions carried out at site in question as group housing and the said decision has not been taken. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as under:- “ In reply to the contents of sub-para (J) of paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold is pending with the office of the respondent for the decision to be taken on the issue of treating the constructions carried out at site, in question, as Group Housing or not which is yet to be taken.”
3. In view of the said contention, a detailed order was passed on 23rd July, 2009 recording as under:-
4. The respondents have produced the original file today in the Court. It is admitted that the petitioner had not made any application for conversion of the property into group housing. It is also admitted that the land rates for conversion stand notified and have not been suspended.
5. It is not understood why the application for conversion filed by the petitioner has been kept in abeyance as the petitioner had not made any application for group housing scheme. The application for conversion has remained pending for the last ten years. The wait cannot continue indefinitely and a decision has to be taken.
6. In these circumstances, direction/mandamus is issued to the respondent to dispose of the conversion application in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date copy of this order is received. The petitioner will be entitled to costs of Rs.10,000/-, which will be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date copy of this order is received. Dasti to the counsel for the respondent.
SANJIV KHANNA, J. AUGUST 04, 2009 VKR