DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. HANS RAJ BATHEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Delhi Development Authority by the present Letters Patent Appeal has impugned the order dated 19th November, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.3631/2008, Hans Raj Bhateja Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has quashed the demand for misuse charges and interest as well as the show cause notice dated 15th June, 2001. It has been further directed that on the respondent herein paying Rs. 6,37,123.73/- (Rupees Six Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand One Hundred

(2.) The property was originally allotted to one Mr. Tara Singh. By application dated 16th June, 1994, the respondent applied for conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold and had submitted papers including power of attorney executed by Mr. Tara Singh. The respondent on self-assessment basis had deposited conversion charges of Rs.43,337/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven only) and another amount of Rs.10,561/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty One only) towards composition fee was deposited on 30th December, 1994 pursuant to the letter dated 20th December, 1994 written by the appellant. By communication dated 7th March, 1995, the respondent received unstamped and unexecuted conveyance deed with the direction to get it stamped from the Collector of Stamps. It is admitted that the respondent was required to submit the stamped conveyance deed with the appellant after adjudication by the Collector of Stamps for execution of the sale/conveyance deed. The respondent waited for about six years and got the conveyance deed stamped on payment of Rs.5,655/- (Rupees Five Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Five only) and submitted the said document vide receipt dated 30th October, 2001.

(3.) During this period, the appellant issued show cause notice dated 15th June, 2001, wherein it was alleged that contrary to the terms and conditions of the sub-lease deed, the property was being used for the sale of bath fittings, tiles etc. i.e., as a showroom or a shop. The respondent, by letter dated 18th July, 2001 protested and stated that the allegations were false and baseless and the respondent and his family members were residing in the premises and no such activity, as stated in the notice was being carried out and there was no nuisance and disturbance to the neighbours. It may be noticed here that in one of the columns of the form for conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold, the respondent-applicant was required to state whether the property was being used for residential purpose i.e. the specified purpose mentioned in the lease deed. The respondent had stated that the property was being used for residential purpose.