The demand for misuse charges must be based on factual determination of past misuse, and such demands must be made within a reasonable time.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to a communication dated 15. 7. 2002 sent by the Delhi Development Authority ('dda') to the petitioner stating that her application dated 26. 9. 1997 for conversion of the plot No. F- 97, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi ("the property") from leasehold to free hold, and her representation dated 18. 3. 2002 were rejected since she had not deposited misuser charges in the sum of Rs. 5,08,387. The petitioner also challenges the communication dated 8. 11. 2002 sent by the DDA requiring her to deposit the aforementioned misuser charges within 15 days from the date of receipt of that letter failing which appropriate action would be initiated against her.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petition and set out hereinafter are based on the pleadings of the parties and the record of the DDA which has been perused by this Court. By a lease deed dated 23. 3. 1968 the property in question was leased by the DDA to one Shri Dwarka Nath. The petitioner's late husband Shri Sohan Singh is stated to have purchased the property from Shri Dwarka Nath some time in 1974. It appears that for the first time on 11. 10. 1974 an inspection was carried out in the locality. The DDA found that the one room in the property was being used for running a typing institute named as "modern Commercial College. " An FIR was lodged on the same day by the dda through its Prosecution Branch. Notice was issued by the DDA to Shri Dwarka nath on 28. 8. 1975 asking him to discontinue the misuse within a period of 15 days. The DDA record shows that the said notice was received on behalf of Shri dwarka Nath by Shri Sohan Singh, the husband of the petitioner on 28. 8. 1975. In reply to the notice on 11. 9. 1975 a reply signed on behalf of Shri Dwarka Nath by shri Sohan Singh was sent to the DDA stating the premises had been allotted to "shri Resham Singh" for residential purposes. The said reply thereafter reads:

"he is using only one room 10' x 12' (lines scored out ). Shri Resham Singh is also residing with his family in the same house. . . . . . . . . " The scored out lines state that the said room was being used by "for typing Institute. "

( 3 ) THE only note on the DDA's file is the one dated 12. 3. 1975 proposing that a show cause notice be issued to Shri Dwarka Nath. There is no other note either in regard to the FIR lodged or the reply to the show cause notice. Given the fact that the next noting in sequence is dated 13. 2. 1979, it appears that no action was taken by the DDA pursuant to the notice dated 28. 8. 1975.

( 4 ) THE notice for completion of construction case was given on 17. 8. 1978 and completion certificate was granted on 19. 12. 1978. When a completion certificate was sought for the extension in the building, the file was again processed by the DDA. At that stage a fresh report about misuser was sought in order to ascertain the charges that should be recovered as a pre-condition to granting the completion certificate. An inspection of the premises was therefore carried out and the noting dated 22. 2. 1979 in that regard reads as under: "inspected the site No. F/97, Naraina Res. Scheme. Misuse has since been vacated from three to four months back. Local enquiries were made but nobody could give a definite date for commencement of the misuse pl. " on 17. 3. 1979 it was noted that: "when the misuse vacated, as reported as noting Page 14, no action by this office required on LSB file. However, documentary evidence may be obtained for removal of misuse with date. " However, the matter does not appear to have been pursued further.

( 5 ) THE notings then show that the file was thereafter misplaced for some time and recovered few months later on 23. 1. 1980. Nothing appears to have happened in the next seven years.

( 6 ) THE record reveals that a general inspection of several premises in the area was undertaken and a misuse report dated 14. 7. 1987 was prepared. Against the property