Full Text
• +
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.fCI 12925/201S BRKALRA&ANR peftjoners
Through: MrPramod KumarAhuja,Advocate.
Through: Ms Anjum Javed, ASC for GNCTD with IvL Devendra Kumar, Mr Faran
Ahmed,MsPriti,Advocates alongwith Mr Vinod Kumar, Dy.
Comm. for R-1/Commissioner of Industry.
MsNikita Salwan,Advocate for R- 2/DSIIDC.
Mr Dhanesh Relan,Standing Counsel with Mr Rajeev Kumar Jha and Ms
Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocates for DBA.
SHRIBALDEV RAJ KALRA AND ANR. Petitioners
Through: MrPramod Kumar Ahuja,Advocate.
Through: Ms Anjum Javed, ASC for GNCTD with Mr Devendra Kumar, Mr Faran
Ahmed,MsPriti, Advocates alongwith Mr Vinod Kumar, Dy.
2018:DHC:9070 Comm. for R-1/Commissioner of Industry.
Ms Nikita Salwan,Advocate forR- 2/DSIIDC.
Mr Dhanesh Relan,Standing Counsel with Mr Rajeev Kumar Jha and Ms
Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocates for DDA.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners in the above petitions are the allottees of industrial sheds / flats allotted by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation(hereafter'DSIIDC')or have otherwise acquired interests in such sheds.The petitioners are desirousthatthe industrial sheds purchased bythem beconvertedfi-om leaseholdtofreehold. Thepetitioners also claim thatthey have deposited the conversion charges withtheDSIIDC for the said purpose. They have filed the present petitions,essentially, being aggrieved by ^ inaction on the part ofthe DSIIDC in converting the aforesaid properties from leasehold to freehold.
3. One of the principal reasons for inaction in conversion of the properties from leasehold to freehold is the impasse between DSIIDC and theDelhiDevelopmentAuthority(hereafter'theDDA'). Itisthe caseofthe DDA that although the structure may belong to the DSIIDC butthe land in question belongs to the DDA and, therefore, the DDA is entitled to the conversion charges and notthe DSIIDC. Itis seenthatasimilar issue is also involved in the case ofShikha Gugnani & Anr. v. Govt. ofNCT& Ors: WP(C)No.9772/2015.
4. By the order dated 08.05.2018 passed in Shikha Gugnani's case,the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had found a workable solution. The relevant extract ofthe said order is as under: "6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,I am ofthe ^ view that while the adjudication ofthe issue as to who should ^ retain the charges which have deposited by the petitioner for the purposes ofconversion can be decided at a later date,the petitioners in the meanwhile should not be put to trouble by delaying the conversion of the subject property from leasehold to freehold.
7. This is, especially so, as I am informed by Mr. Dhawan that the conversion charges were deposited as far back as in July, 2013. As indicated above, Ms. Arora does not dispute " this fact. She says thatthere could be some additional charges that may have to be paid by the petitioners. t r
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, DSIIDC is directed to convertthe subject property from leasehold to freehold.
9. A conveyance deed will be executed in favour of the petitioners. In case, additional charges have to be paid, the petitioners will deposit the same upon DSIIDC giving them due intimation. Furthermore, if any other formalities are required to be fulfilled,the petitioners will also comply with the same.
10. The needful will be done by DSIIDC within eight weeks from today.
11. Insofar as the conversion charges received from the petitioners are concerned,they will be deposited in a no-lien interest bearing Account by DSIIDC. As to which entity will finally enjoy the benefit of the same, shall be determined upon final adjudication ofthe writ petition."
5. This Court is ofthe view that it would be apposite to follow the said procedure in these matters as well. Accordingly, DSIIDC is directed to convert the said properties from leasehold to freehold provided the petitioners deposit the necessary conversion charges with the DSIIDC and otherwise comply with all other requirements. The issue whether the DDA or DSIIDC is entitled to appropriate the conversion charges, would not hold up the applications filed by the petitioners for conversion ofthe properties allotted to them, from leasehold to freehold. All charges received by the DSIIDC for converting the properties in question shall be deposited in a nolien interest bearing account.
6. It is clarified that nothing stated herein should be construed as an expression of opinion that the petitioners are otherwise entitled to conversion ofthe respective properties purchased by them.
7. The issue as to whether the DDA or DSIIDC would be entitled to the same shall abide by the decision ofthis Court in Shikha Gugnani{supra), which this Courtis informed is pending before the Co-ordinate Bench ofthis Court.
8. It is further directed that in the eventthe petitioners are not eligible or have not complied with the requirement under the conversion policy, DSIIDC shall communicate the same to the petitioners within eight weeks from today.
9. The present petitions are disposed of in the above terins. All the pending applications,ifany,are also disposed of.
10. Order dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master.
VIBHU BAKHRU,J NOVEMBER 30,2018 f RK C I/'