Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Jaya Saini – Appellant
Versus
Lt. Governor, GNCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
LPA 67 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 4412 of 2023 & 4414 of 2023
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Mutation Guidelines - Jhuggi Jhopri Resettlement Colonies - Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (Sections 41, 42, 45) - The court discussed the guidelines for mutation/transfer of properties allotted by the Slum & JJR Wing, DDA, and the policy for grant of freehold/ownership rights to occupants of Jhuggi Jhopri Resettlement Colonies. The court emphasized that the scheme for grant of freehold/ownership rights was applicable only to residential plots and not to commercial plots, and upheld the decision of the authorities under the DUSIB Act to cancel the allotment due to unauthorized occupation and construction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a subsequent purchaser, challenged the order dismissing an appeal under the DUSIB Act, which upheld the eviction order due to unauthorized occupation and construction. The appellant sought conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold, citing mutation guidelines and discrimination in the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant, as a subsequent purchaser, had no legal right to claim conversion from leasehold to freehold, and the unauthorized occupation and construction justified the cancellation of the allotment.
Issues: Challenge to the policy restricting grant of freehold to residential colonies, discrimination in the policy, and the right to claim conversion from leasehold to freehold.
Ratio Decidendi: The subsequent purchaser had no legal right to claim conversion from leasehold to freehold, and the unauthorized occupation and construction justified the cancellation of the allotment.
Final Decision: The LPA was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. Aggrieved by the Judgement dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 15669/2022 dismissing the writ petition, the Appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant LPA.
2. Shorn of details the facts leading to the present LPA are as under:
i. It is stated that Jhuggi Jhopri Resettlement (JJR) Colonies were developed in Delhi and in these colonies, land was allotted to persons who were dislocated on account of removal/demolition/eviction proceedings from Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters and land was allotted under the JJR Scheme for residential and commercial plots.
ii. Under the said Scheme, residential plots measuring 25 sq. yds. and commercial plots measuring 12.5 sq. yds. were issued on a licence basis. Under the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the construction on the plots was to be done in accordance with the plan approved by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the allottee could not change the use of the plot. It is stated that the allottee could not transfer or sublet the plot and in case of transfer or sublease of the plot/flat, the allotment would automatically stand cancelled and the DDA was to evict the transferee and take possession of the property without payment of any compensation.
iii. On 14.07.1987, guidelines for mutation/transfer of properties allotted by the Slum & JJR Wing, DDA were issued for the purpose of mutation to the original allottee and also for the legal heirs of a person who had earlier been allotted the plot.
iv. The shop in question, i.e., Shop No.4/24, Dakshin Puri Extn., DDA Market, New Delhi was allotted to one Ramesh S/o N K Pillai in the year 1976. As per the terms and conditions, the sale/purchase of the shop was not permissible. On a survey being conducted by Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), it was found that the allottee had sold the shop in question and massive unauthorized construction, i.e., Ground +3 floors had been constructed and there was encroachment on government land.
v. The property in question was in occupation of one Subhash Saini, husband of the Appellant herein. It is stated that a school in the name of Green Heaven Public School was also being run from the premises.
vi. Proceedings were initiated under Sections 41 and 42 of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as `the DUSIB Act') and Order dated 01.02.2021 was passed by the Deputy Director (JJR), DUSIB, directing the Appellant to vacate the premises in question and handover the peaceful physical possession to the Executive Engineer, C-6, DUSIB.
vii. The said order was challenged by way of an appeal and the Director (JJR), DUSIB vide Order dated 06.08.2021 upheld the Order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Deputy Director. The Appellate Authority upheld the findings that the condition of allotment did not permit sale/purchase or change of hands in any manner and the persons who were allotted the shops were only the licencees and they were neither the owners nor did they have any right to transfer the shops.
viii. The said order was challenged before the Lt. Governor by filing an appeal under Section 45 of the DUSIB Act and the Lt. Governor vide Order dated 13.07.2022 upheld the order passed by Director (JJR), DUSIB.
ix. Before the Lt. Governor, it was contended that the DDA had brought out a policy for conversion of lease hold rights to free hold rights and the Appellant herein must be permitted to convert the property from lease hold to free hold. It was stated that the shop in question was allotted in the year 1976 under the EWS Category in Block-4, Dakshin Puri Extn. Delhi. It was stated that on 11.06.1984, the Ministry of Work and Housing, Govt. of India had recommended to the Union Territory of Delhi for grant of perpetual lease hold rights in respect of residential tenements constructed in Delhi under slum clearance scheme. It was stated that since the Appellant is similarly situated inasmuch as the property i
Subsequent purchasers have no legal right to claim conversion of property from lease hold to free hold and are liable for eviction if in unauthorized occupation.
Policies regarding land rights are within government discretion unless shown to be arbitrary; judicial intervention is limited.
The court upheld that under the relevant law, commercial properties cannot be converted from license to freehold, affirming the requirement of original allottees' compliance for legal recognition.
A policy allowing leasehold conversion for residential properties does not apply to commercial properties, and failure to seek mutation negates occupancy rights.
The court ruled that the policy for converting properties under the DUSIB Act applies only to residential plots, and failure to mutate properties renders occupancy unauthorized.
Violation of terms and conditions of the license and the prohibition of having more than one plot in one's name influenced the court's decision.
Compliance with the terms and conditions of allotment, including prohibition on unauthorized constructions and transfer of possession, is essential to contest eviction under the DUSIB Act, 2010.
Failure to substantiate entitlement to rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 results in denial of the benefit. However, authorities must provide temporar....
Eligibility for rehabilitation under the 2015 Policy is contingent upon the notification of jhuggi jhopri basti by DUSIB and adherence to the cut-off dates for entitlement to rehabilitation.
The failure of the DDA to process the property conversion request due to unsubstantiated claims of fraud and lack of documentation violates the respondent's rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
