Full Text
$-50,54,56&69 HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.rC^ 9943/2018
SHRIUPKARSINGH Petitioner
■ Through: Mr S.C.Singhal,Advocate.
Through: Ms Kanika Bansal and Ms Nikita Salwan,Advocatesfor R-l/DSIIDC.
Mr Dhruv Rohtagi and Mr Kapil Gupta,Advocatesfor R-2&R-3.
A
Through: Mr S.C.Singhal,Advocate.
Through: Ms Kanika Bansal and Ms Nikita Salwan,Advocates for R-l/DSIIDC.
Mr Dhananjaya Mishra, Advocate for R-2 and R-3.
M/S SAKS EXPORTPVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr S.C.Singhal,Advocate.
2018:DHC:8695 AND ORS.
Respondents
Through; Ms Kanika Bansal and Ms Nikita Mr Bharat Singh Sisodia, Advocate for R-2& R-3.
AND
W.P.tO 10000/2018 NEBLAM SETHI
Through:
DSIIDC & ORS
Petitioner Mr S.C.Singhal,Advocate.
Respondents Ms Kanika Bansal and Ms Nikita Mr Abhishek Kumar Singh,Advocate for R-2& R-3.
ORDER o/o 24.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners in the above petitions are the allottees of industrial sheds / 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 thatthey have deposited the conversion charges with the DSIIDC for the said purpose.
2. 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 impasse between DSIIDC and the Delhi Development Authority(hereafter'the DDA')- It is the case ofthe DDA thatalthough the structure may belongto theDSIIDC butthe land m question belongs to the DDA and,therefore, the DDA is entitled to the conversion charges and notthe DSIIDC. It is seen thatthe similar issue is also involved in the case ofShikha Gugnani& Am. 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 extractofthe said order is under.
6. Havingheardlearned counselforthe parties,Iam of the view that while the adjudication ofthe issue as to who should retain the charges which have deposited^ by the petitionerforthepurposesofconversioncan be decided ata later date,the petitionersinthe meanwhile should notbe put totrouble by delayingthe conversion ofthe subjectproperty from leasehold to freehold.
7. This is, especially so,as I am informed by Mr.Dhawan thatthe 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 chargesthatmay haveto bepaid bythe petitioners.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, DSIIDC is directed to convertthesubjectproperty fromleaseholdtofreehold.
9. A conveyance deed will be executed in favour of the petitioners.In case,additional charges have to be paid,the petitioners will depositthe same upon DSIIDC givingthem due intimation. Furthermore, if any other formalities are requiredto befulfilled,thepetitioners willalsocomply with the same.
10. The needful willbe done byDSIIDG within eight weeks from today.
11. Insofar as the conversion charges received from the petitioners areconcerned,they willbe deposited inano-lien interest bearing Account by DSIIDC. As to which entity will finally enjoy the benefit of the same,^ shall be determined uponfinal adjudication ofthe writpetition.
5. This Courtis 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 depositthe necessary conversion charges with the DSIIDC and otherwise comply with all other requirements. The issue whetherthe DDA or DSIIDC is entitled to appropriatethe conversion charges,would nothold up the applications filed by the petitioners for conversion ofthe properties allotted to them,from leasehold to freehold. All charges received by the DSIIDCfor convertingthe 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 oftherespective properties allottedtothem.
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), whichthis Courtisinformedis pendingbeforethe Co-ordinateBenchofthis Court.
8. Itisfurther directedthatintheevent,the petitioners are noteligible or >■ f have not complied with the requirement under the conversion policy, DSIIDC shall communicate the same to the petitioners within two weeks from today.
9. The present petitions are disposed of in the above terms. All the pendingapplications,ifany, are also disposedof
10. Order dastiunder the signatures ofthe Court Master. VIBHUBAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 24,2018 MK