SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the lessee of plot No.A-3/51, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Vide perpetual lease deed dated 8 th January, 1974 executed between the appellant and the President of India. The appellant applied for conversion of the leasehold rights into freehold. In response, the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sent a demand letter dated 21 st August, 1998 calling upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.22,27,664/- on the ground that the appellant was misusing the said residential premises by running a school therein with the name "Premier Public School". As per the respondent DDA, notice dated 28th May, 1983 had also been issued to the appellant to show cause why misuse charges be not levied. The case of the respondent DDA is that no reply was received to the said show cause notice and therefore another show cause notice dated 7 th January, 1984 was also LPA 991/2006 issued but even that was not responded to and the appellant did not even intimate that he had removed the misuse. It was only when inspection was carried out in the year 1995, pursuant to the conversion application made, that it was reported that there was then no misuse. On this basis, the respondent DDA computed and demanded misuse charges from 28th May, 1983 to 11th December, 1995.

(2.) THE appellant, in the first instance took the matter before the Lok Adalat of the respondent DDA, questioning the levy of aforesaid misuse charges. His contention was that he was not served with any show cause notice. During the proceedings before the Lok Adalat, on 17 th December, 2002, the appellant was confronted with the proof of service of show cause notice dated 7th January, 1984; however the appellant still denied the same stating that he had not received any such show cause notice. As the matter could not be sorted out in the Lok Adalat, those proceedings were dropped. Thereafter the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.8075/2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court challenging the aforesaid demand of Rs.22,27,664/- on account of misuse charges and with prayer that his application for conversion from leasehold to freehold be considered and processed without demanding these charges.

(3.) THE appellant accordingly filed Review Petition No.162/2005 pointing out that the reply was not forged as it was duly recorded in the Receipt Dak Register of the respondent DDA at the aforesaid entry. This review petition was contested by the respondent DDA inter alia on the ground that the respondent DDA does not receive so much dak on any particular day and LPA 991/2006 Receipt No.3298 was improbable. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, after recording the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, in the following words:-