Full Text
W.P.(C) 9627/2018
VASANTMEHTA Petitioner Tlirough: MrPramodAhuja, Advocate.
Tlirough: Ms Renuka Arora and Ms Nikita Salwan, Advocates for DSIIDC. j Mr Bharat Singh Sisodia, Advocate for R-2.
Mr Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel for DDA with Ms Komal Sorout and
Ms Kairi Gupta, Advocates.
ASHOK KUMAR Petitioner
Through: Mr Pramod Ahuja, Advocate.
Through: Ms Renuka Arora and Ms Nikita 0 ' Salwan, Advocates for DSIIDC.
Ms Kajri Gupta, Advocates, y
SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr Pramod Ahuja, Advocate.
Through: Mr Varun Kumar Tikmani, Advocate forR-1.
Ms Renuka Arora and Ms Nikita 2018:DHC:8644 V* , .
•• • ••
Salwan, Advocates for DSIIDC.
Ms Kajri Gupta, Advocates.
AND
W.P.(0 9703/2018 SHRI. VINAYMALHOTRA Petitioner
Through: Mr PramodAhuja, Advocate.
Through: Ms Renuka AroraandMsNikita ^ Salwan, Advocates for DSIIDC.
Ms Kajri Gupta, Advocates.
14.09.2018
ORDER
1. The petitioners in the above petitions ai:e the allottees of industrial sheds 1 flats by the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereafter 'DSIIDC'). The petitioners are desirous that the industrial sheds allotted to them be converted from leasehold to freehold. The petitioners; also claim, that they have deposited the conversion charges with the DSIIDC for the said purpose.
2. They have filed the present.petition?,.essentially, being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the DSIIDC in converting the aforesaid properties from leasehold tp freehold..
3. One "of the principal reasons for inaction in conversion of the properties from leasehold to fi'eehold is impasse between DSIIDC and the rf •i Delhi Development Authority (hereafter 'the DDA'). It is the case of the DDA that although the structure may belong to the DSIIDC but the land in question belongs to the DDA and, therefore, the DDA is entitled to the conversion charges and not the DSIIDC. It is seen that the similar 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 of the 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 ofthe 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 that there could be some additional charges that may have to be paid by the petitioners.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, DSIIDC is directed to convert the 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. V
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.
3. This Court is of the view that it would be apposite to follow the said procedure in these matters as well. Accordingly, the 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 entitledto appropriate the conversion charges, would not hold up the applications filed by the petitioners for conversion of the 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.
4. It is clarified that nothing stated herein should be construed as an expression of opinion that the petitioners are otherwise entitled to conversionofthe respectiveproperties allottedto them.
5. The issue as to whether the DDA or DSIIDC would be entitled to the same shall abide by the decision of this Court in Shikha Gugnani {supra), whichthis Courtis informed is pendingbeforethe Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
6. It is ftirther directed that in the event, the petitioners are not eligible or o- • J have not complied with the requirement under the conversion policy, the DSIIDC shall communicate the same to the petitioners within two weeks from today.
7. The present petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of
8. Order dasti under the signatures ofthe Court Master. VIBHUBAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 RK