D.D.A. Vs. AMAR NATH GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only issue which arises in this appeal is whether in the facts of this case the Appellant DDA could decline to execute the conveyance deed and insist that the respondent ought to deposit charges determined by it towards alleged misuse for a period of 15 years as a pre-condition.

(2.) THE respondent is a senior citizen and he has constructed a building, which is occupied by his family. On 30.3.1999 the respondent had applied for conversion from lease hold to free hold in respect of the above property and complied all the formalities as per the rules and regulations of the DDA and also deposited all requisite charges as per demanded of by the DDA in accordance with calculation mentioned in its Book-let. The original scheme nowhere stipulated the payment or deposit of any misuse charges. Indeed one of the circulars dated 15.7.1999, provided by Clause 3 that the conversion of all these properties irrespective of any building violation or use violation would be allowed. It was also provided that action for unauthorized construction or misuse or would be taken care of by the MCD and DDA under various laws and regulations. Thus, it is clear that while formulating the policy the DDA held out to the intended beneficiaries that only the charges spelt out in the scheme of conversion were payable. The DDA acted on this understanding and processed the application of the respondent and approved the same vide decision dated 5.1.2000. The respondent acted upon it, made entire payment and even purchased the stamp papers, and furnished them to the DDA. Thereafter the respondent was called upon to appear in the office of the DDA on 31.3.2000 for execution of the Conveyance Deed. The Conveyance Deed was not executed and subsequently by impugned letter dated 20.11.2000 demanded Rs.11,55,656/- on account of misuse charge w.e.f. 13.9.1985 to 28.6.1999. Being aggrieved the respondent filed writ petition which came to be allowed by learned single Judge vide order under appeal and held that:

(3.) THE matter can also be looked from another point of view. The circular dated 4.2.2000 states that wherever the owner / occupier of the property misuses it, the application for conversion would be processed on realisation in misuse charges. In t his case processing of the documents furnished by the respondent had been completed in December 1999 and he was communicated of the formal decision in January 2000. Therefore, the case of the respondent would not be covered by circular dated 4.2.2000.