The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conversion scheme did not specifically include cinema plots, and the communication from the respondents did not constitute acceptance of the conversion application.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order dated 21.07.2009 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1842/2006. The appellant had filed a Writ Petition seeking appropriate writ/direction to respondent No. 2 i.e. Land and Development Officer, Ministry of Urban Development (L&DO) to convert the property of the appellant Eagle Theatres, Plaza Cinema Building, H-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 from leasehold to freehold for which an application for conversion had been submitted on 26.2.2004 and for withdrawal of the impugned communication of L&DO dated 2.12.2005.

2. The brief facts as stated in the petition by the appellant are that the respondents/Secretary of the State of India in Council granted a lease for the said property on 16.04.1937 to one M/s. Mangal Dass Verma and others. The lease was for a plot measuring 32710 sq. ft. or 0.75 acre or thereabout. The appellants subsequently purchased the leasehold rights.

3. In June 2003 the respondents issued a brochure for conversion of leasehold land into freehold land. The conversion scheme was made applicable to commercial and mixed land use properties allotted by L&DO for which ownership rights have been conferred and lease deed executed and registered.

4. It is the contention of the appellants that relying on the said conversion scheme, on 26.2.2004 the appellants applied for conversion of their leasehold land into freehold. A demand draft for Rs. 10,54,213/- being the stated 1/5th of the amount of conversion charges was also deposited. It is contended that the appellant received a communication from L&DO dated 12.04.2004 stating that the property of the appellant would be converted into freehold on payment of full conversion fees and all other government dues.

5. Hence, it is contended that on 10.09.2004 the appellant paid another sum of Rs. 10,53,713/-. On 16.12.2004 the entire balance amount of Rs. 31,61,138/- was deposited. It is further contended that despite these steps taken by the appellant, the respondents took no steps to convert the property into freehold. Several reminders were sent to the respondent by the appellant.

6. On 2.12.2005, the appellant received a communication from the respondents pointing out that the request of the appellant for conversion has been examined and could not be acceded to as Clause 26 of the Scheme is not applicable to the appellants case inasmuch as the respondents policy for conversion from leasehold to freehold of cinema plots is still awaited. The appellant in protest is said to have addressed a detailed representation/communication dated 08.12.2005 to the respondents demanding that appropriate steps be taken by the respondents to convert the property to freehold. It was urged that the brochure issued in 2003 does not state that it is not applicable to cinema plots or that the scheme regarding cinema plots is yet to be finalized. In response to the representation of the appellant, the respondents on 18.01.2006 sent a response reiterating the earlier stand of the respondents as communicated vide letter dated 2.12.2005. It was in this background that the present writ petition was filed by the appellant.

7. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit before the learned Single Judge. In the counter-affidavit it was stated that the scheme for conversion of leasehold properties into freehold pertained only in respect of residential and commercial properties and not for cinema plots and hotels. Reliance was also placed on schedule of market rates notified from time to time, the list of such rates was stated to have been lastly notified prior to launch of the scheme of June, 2003 by the respondent on 16.4.1999. The said notification it is urged clearly provides that no market rates are prescribed regarding hotels and cinema sites and such cases have to be specifically considered in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. As conversion charges payable by an applicant are based on notified m