VIKAS JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) Final opportunity to file Counter Affidavits within the time permitted by the Court has not been availed of. The factual matrix raises no controversy. The petition is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) One of the questions that has arisen in this Writ Petition has already received the attention of several Single Judges of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench in Union of India vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal, 116(2005) DLT 322. I have also allowed various writ petitions on this question viz. WP(C) No.7751/2005 titled Garden View Meadows Private Limited vs. Land and Development Officer decided on 11.11.2005, WP(C) No. 6837/2005 titled Anu Mehra vs. Union of India decided on 2.8.2005, WP(C)No.3566/2002 titled M.C. Gupta vs. Union of India decided on 5.12.2005 and WP(C) No.7990-92/2005 titled Brij Goel vs. Union of India decided on 9.12.2005. Thereafter, a batch of petitions titled Bal Kishore Chhabra vs. Union of India, 127(2006) DLT 460 were allowed by Judgment dated 30th January, 2006. It has been contended that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been admitted against the Judgment of the Division Bench in Vinay Kumar Agarwal's case, but the Apex Court has not stayed the operation of the Judgment. A Single Bench must honour and follow this detailed Judgment even though another Division Bench may have stayed the operation of an Order passed by a Single Bench which implemented Vinay Kumar Agarwal, on the sole ground that the aforementioned SLP is still pending. In those cases the L and DO had not converted the properties from Leasehold to Freehold because of alleged misuser and/or existence of unauthorised construction. The view of the Division Bench is that these aspects must be left to the Municipal Authorities, and even assuming their existence, the conversion should not be withheld. This approach should be traversed a fortiori, since the plea of the Petitioners is only for their substitution/mutation.