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.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. Since the issues involved in both the LPAs are identical and the parties are being represented by the same Counsel, with the consent of the parties, both the LPAs are being disposed of by a common Judgment.

2. Aggrieved by the Judgement dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 15679/2022 & W.P.(C) 15678/2022, dismissing the writ petitions, the Appellants have approached this Court by filing the instant appeals, i.e., LPA 72/2023 & LPA 75/2023 respectively.

3. Shorn of details the facts leading to the present LPAs 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 in LPA 72/2023, i.e., Shop No.4/40, Dakshin Puri Extn., New Delhi was allotted to one Trilok S/o Santosh Singh in the year 1976 and the shop in question in LPA 75/2023, i.e., Shop No.4/39, Dakshin Puri Extn., New Delhi was allotted to one Istiakh Ahmed S/o Mohd. Yunusin the year 1976.

v. As per the terms and conditions, sale/purchase of the shop(s) was not permissible. On a survey being conducted by Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), it was found that the allottee(s) has sold the shop in question and massive unauthorized construction, i.e., upto 5th floor, had been carried out and there was encroachment on government land as well. The property in question in LPA 72/2023 was in occupation one Subhash Kukreja, father of the Appellant in LPA 72/2023 and the property in question in LPA 75/2023 was in occupation one Subhash Kukreja, husband of the Appellant in LPA 75/2023.

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(s) 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 le