R.L. SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Respondent to grant his prayer for conversion of the property at Plot No. 8, Site No. 7, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi from leasehold to freehold.

(2.) ON 15th July 1996 the Petitioner was handed over possession of the property in question pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in IA No. 18 of 1985 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985. It must be mentioned that under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme, the Petitioner had been allotted property at Aram Bagh. Since the said property was a part of 11 plots which were on the ridge area the Petitioner was, in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court, required to vacate the Aram Bagh property and hand over possession of the said property subject to opting for the alterative plot, which was the property in question, allotted to him by way of draw of lots. In the meanwhile on 15th July 1996 the possession of the property in question was handed over to the Petitioner. On 30th January 1997 a lease deed was executed in terms of which the petitioner lessee was required to complete construction over the plot by 14th July 1998 and to furnish the completion certificate. Although the Petitioner was to hand over possession of the Aram Bagh property by 4th September 1996, he ultimately did so on 30th October 1999 in terms of a further order by the Supreme Court.

(3.) IN July 1999 the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Land & Development Office (L & DO) announced a policy for conversion of leasehold properties into freehold. The Petitioner applied for conversion on 21st December 1999. He also deposited the conversion fee of Rs. 23,400. On 19th December 2000, the Petitioner was asked to deposit various charges under the head of damages not only in relation to the unauthorized occupation of the Aram Bagh property but misuse of the property in question as well. In the said letter although the subject matter read as "damages charges and conversion charges in respect of Plot No. 8, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi" it had two distinct portions. One was under the heading "damages charges for unauthorized occupation of Government land at Aram Bagh" for which the following damages sought to be recovered: