MOHD MURSALEEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-46
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on May 24,2007

MOHD.MURSALEEN Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.Ravindra Bhat, J. - (1.) These proceedings seek review of the judgment and order of this Court dated 9.5.2005.
(2.) The writ petitioner had challenged a demand issued by the DDA (hereinafter "DDA") on 20.11.2002 and also sought for directions to restore his lease-hold rights and convert them into freehold. He had purchased a 375 sq.mtr. plot (hereafter called the "property") on perpetual lease hold basis. The lease deed was executed on 30.1.1979. He completed construction on the plot an occupation certificate was issued on 20.12.1986. According to his case a portion of the premises being basement was let out on 9.3.1990. The purposes of tenancy was storage of finished furniture; the duration of the arrangement was 17 months. It was alleged that the tenant misused the premises. The writ petitioner terminated the arrangement and filed a suit for possession in this Court, in 1992. He also took further action and disconnected electricity supply to the premises on 23.7.1993. Apparently, the writ petitioner had intimated the DDA and the Zonal Assistant Commissioner which led to filing of complaint under Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act. That alleged commission of the offence, on 9.11.1992. The tenant i.e T.H. Naqvi was convicted on 26.4.1996. After a great deal of effort the writ petitioner/lessee obtained possession of the premises on 20.4.2000. He also faced further proceedings by the tenant, who filed an injunction suit impleading him as the defendant.
(3.) After all the events the writ petitioner sought for conversion of the property into freehold when he was informed that the lease had been cancelled. The DDA expressed willingness to restore the lease upon payment by him of the sum of Rs.27,000/-. After payment of the restoration charges, on 1st May, 2001, the DDA demanded "misuse" charges, for the sum of Rs.15,87,480/-. Despite his entreaties, the DDA insisted that the amount ought to be paid as a condition for conversion of the property. That action was impugned.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.