JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J. :—This appeal raises some questions which are important both for the Delhi Administration as well as for their lessees of land. Shortly stated, the questions involved are : (a) what constitutes an application for permission to convert the user of the land? (b) from which date the conversion charges are leviable? and (c) from which date interest is chargeable on the conversion charges?

2. The land involved in the present case is at 20, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and admeasures about 0.956 acre. It was leased by the Governor General in Council to one Smt. Rama Bai on November 17,1931. The regular lease-deed was drawn up in.1938. It was a perpetual lease given on a premium of Rs. 8,000/- at the annual rent of Rs. 400/- Smt. Rama Bai constructed a residential building on the land. On May 20, 1938, Smt Rama Bai assigned the lease in favour of Smt. Leelawati who died on November 6, 1969. The interest in the lease devolved on respondents 1-4 and one Hans Raj Gupta and their names were mutated in the record of rights as is evidenced by the Government Memo of November 21, 1977. Hans Raj Gupta died on July 31, 1985. Respondents 5-11 are his heirs and legal representatives. It appears that Hans Raj Gupta had left a will. It is the subject matter of probate proceedings in Suit No. 62 of 1985 which is being contested. If the will is probated then share of the late Hans Raj Gupta will devolve upon respondents 6-9; otherwise, it will devolve on all his heirs, viz., respondents 5-11. For the purpose of the questions to be answered in this appeal, we are not much concerned with the devolution of property after the death of late Hans Raj Gupta.

3. In September 1962, the Delhi Development Authority prepared a Master Plan for Delhi under Section 7 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act).

4. Before the names of respondents 1-4 and the late Hans Raj Gupta were mutated in the property register on November 21, 1977, a letter was written on April 25, 1977 by one of the lessees - to be precise, by the first respondent, through an advocate, to the Land & Development Officer which read as follows:

"....... My client Shri Dev Raj Gupta son of late Smt. Leela Gupta proposes to construct a multi-storeyed building on the above mentioned plot. Please let me know the charges, if any, payable for conversion of the land use from residential to commercial for constructing a multi-storeyed commercial building on the said plot after demolishing the existing bunglow constructed on the abovesaid plot.

Your early response in the matter shall highly be appreciated.

Thanking you,

.........."

We do not have on record reply, if any, sent to this letter. But it appears that there was some letter of the same date, viz., April 25, 1977 addressed by "the heirs and executors" of the estate of late Smt. Leelawati Gupta, C/o Shri Prem Shanker, Advocate, i.e., the very same advocate who had written the letter earlier alluded to on behalf of the first respondent, and a reply was given by the office of the Land & Development Officer on July 29, 1977 to this letter of the "heirs and executors etc." stating therein that their letter was receiving attention. What that letter was has not come on record. The only development thereafter was, as stated earlier, the Government Memo of November 21, 1977 communicating that the names of respondents 1-4 and of the late Hans Raj Gupta were mutated in the properly register against the leased land. It may be mentioned here that this Government Memo was addressed to the later Hans Raj Gupta and respondents 1-4 care of the said Advocate, Shri Prem Shankar. We are informed at the Bar that the request for such mutation was made on October 12, 1972 on the basis of a partition deed of December 15, 1970 after the death of Smt. Leelawati on November 26, 1969. What is important to note from the developments so far, as far as the issues involved in this appeal are concerned, is that no application for conver