S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

( 1 ) THE present appeal, under letters patent, is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 28. 4. 2004 in WP (C) 272/2003. By the judgment, the writ petition of the respondent was allowed, with certain directions.

( 2 ) THE issue involved in this appeal is with regard to the power of the appellant to insist upon payment of damages as a pre-condition for conversion of leasehold property into freehold.

( 3 ) THE predecessor in interest of the respondent, late Shri Lakshmi Chand was the perpetual lessee of Plot No. 1 Block 90, 1, at Jain Mandir Road, New delhi further to a lease deed executed on 15. 3. 1922. A two-storeyed building was constructed on that plot ("the plot") in 1935. On the death of Lakshmi chand, the property and the plot was mutated as per letter dated 6. 6. 1963 in the name of the petitioner. Later, apparently, the respondent made certain additional constructions as per the Resolution of the New Delhi Municipal Committee but the appellant, Land and Development Office, Government of India, which was the perpetual lessor refused to grant permission for the additional construction and further refused to regularise the misuse on the premises. This position appears from the letter dated 9. 7. 1969. The appellant expressed willingness to reconsider its decision provided the respondent complied with the terms set out in the letter requiring payment of certain additional charges.

( 4 ) THE respondent, however, did not comply with the terms. He represented on 14. 11. 1969 stating that the charges were exorbitant and penalty should not be imposed. The appellant, by letter dated 18. 12. 1969, rejected that representation. It sought compliance with the terms and conditions of its letter dated 9. 7. 1969 within 15 days, failing which the terms were to be treated as cancelled and withdrawn; action was threatened against the respondent under clause 13 of the lease deed for violation of its terms and conditions. The respondent raised the same issues in the letter dated 27. 1. 1970.

( 5 ) THE appellant by letter dated 10. 4. 1970, determined the lease of the respondent and re-entered the premises with effect from 1. 4. 1970,on account of the failure of the respondent to comply with the terms of the letter dated 9. 7. 1969. The letter informed that the Department has been directed to take possession of the premises from the respondent. The respondent again represented on 4. 6. 1970. He was called. to attend the office of the appellant. The respondent, by his letter of 19. 10. 1971 raised the issue about the quantification of the demand (in terms of letter dated 9. 7. 1969 for Rs. 17,556. 20 as charges for misuse, for office use, of an area measuring 1205 sq. feet ). He stated that in any case the area of misuse is 120. 6 square feet, and that only one room was used as a personal office.

( 6 ) THE respondent apparently addressed several reminders. He also requested information for additional charges under the rules. No response was forthcoming from the appellant. The respondent, by letter dated 16. 6. 1984 informed the appellant that the first floor and Barsati floor were still in his possession for purpose of residence and requested for information about misuse charges, if any. On 12. 4. 1993 the respondent informed the appellant that entire premises were lying vacant from January 1993 and could be inspected.

( 7 ) IN 1992, a scheme for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold was introduced by the appellant; and a brochure was issued in April 1992. This scheme was concerned only with plots of land up to 500 sq. metres. This restriction was subsequently waived in terms of a new brochure issued in July 1999 and concessional land rates of 1987 were made applicable as per the earlier scheme to even such plots, up to 31. 3. 2000.

( 8 ) THE respondent applied under the said scheme for conversion of the property as aforesaid into freehold vide application dated 13. 7. 1999. On 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document