RAVINDER SAYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties matter has been heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) One Bahadur Singh was allotted Quarter No. 36/2A/ DS-III, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi by the President of India on 29/12/1962. After obtaining permission from the respondents, Bahadur Singh sold the property to the petitioner and sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 8/09/1987. The name of the petitioner was duly mutated in the records of the respondents in August, 1988. The respondents issued a scheme for conversion of lease hold property into free hold on the terms and conditions as contained in the said scheme. The petitioner on 14/12/1998 applied for conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold and deposited a sum of Rs. 7.100.00 with the State Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch in accordance with the scheme. By letter dated 2 8/09/2000, the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner for conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold on the ground that the total built up area mentioned in the application by the petitioner was as per the Ministry of Rehabilitation .whereas additional construction had been made and, therefore, information furnished by the petitioner being false. The application could not be accepted. This order of the respondents has been challenged by the petitioner by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) In the counter affidavit the only ground taken by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's application is that the petitioner had made a false declaration about the existence of unauthorised construction in the premises, and it was, therefore, decided to reject her application for conversion. In terms of the scheme of conversion from lease hold to free hold, conversion is to be granted to the lease hold property even if there exists unauthorised construction. However, the applicant would continue to be liable for action under the Municipal Bye-laws. In terms of the scheme with conversion of the property to free hold in spite of unauthorised construction existing in the premises will not act as a waiver of any action, which is liable to be taken under the building bye-laws by the local authorities. Under Clause 18 of the Scheme grounds have been mentioned on which the conversion application is liable to be rejected. The application in terms of Clause 18 cannot be rejected on the ground that there either existed unauthorised construction or the applicant had not mentioned in the application that unauthorised construction existed in the premises. In view of the clear provisions in the scheme that conversion will be granted even if there was unauthorised construction existing in the premises, in my opinion, the respondents had no right to reject the application of the petitioner only on the ground that there existed unauthorised construction in the premises or that the petitioner had failed to mention the same in the application. The stand taken by the respondents, in my opinion, is clearly against the provisions of the scheme framed by the respondent. There was no justification to issue the impugned letter and reject the application of the petitioner for conversion only on the ground of the existence of the unauthorised construction.