The court emphasized that the DDA's attempt to redefine terms and refuse to execute the lease deed after multiple court directives and payment of charges amounted to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. The Appellant/DDA seeks to challenge the Order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 5794/2015. The learned Single Judge vide the said Order allowed the writ petition and directed the Appellant/DDA to execute the lease deed in respect of Plot No. 273, Fruit and Vegetable Market, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, in favour of the original Writ Petitioner for general commercial purpose in accordance with the directions already issued by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2013 passed in W.P.(C) 10616/2009 and as approved in the resolution passed in the 208th meeting of the Screening Committee held on 30.11.1999, as clarified in the communication dated 25.01.2001. As rightly pointed by the learned Single Judge that the original Writ Petitioner has had to repeatedly approach to this Court and despite being obtaining Orders in his favour, he has not been successful in using his property as a commercial office.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts leading to the filing of the instant LPA are as under:

a) The original Writ Petitioner, late Om Prakash Kapoor, was allotted a Plot bearing No.273, Fruit and Vegetable Market, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `subject property') by the Appellant/DDA. As per the terms and conditions of the auction of the subject property, the property was meant for cold storage and the original Writ Petitioner late Om Prakash Kapoor started raising construction on the subject property. The original Writ Petitioner, thereafter, applied for requisite licence for running a cold storage. However, the Appellant/DDA refused to grant the licence for running a cold storage on the subject property.

b) Since, the requisite licence for running the cold storage was not granted, the original Writ Petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 2935/1987 praying for an appropriate direction for changing the use of the subject property from cold storage to commercial/office. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the DDA submitted that the entire change of user from cold storage to commercial/office cannot be allowed as it violates the Zonal Development Plan. This Court vide Order dated 05.02.1990 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the DDA to allow the Writ Petitioner to change the user of the subject property from cold storage to commercial/office to the extent that 70% and the remaining 30% including basement for storage. This Court further directed that if the writ petitioner is able to get a licence for cold storage in future, he will be allowed to use 30% including the basement for cold storage. By the said Order, the Appellant/DDA was also directed to impose a liability upon the Writ Petitioner to fulfil necessary formalities and to pay additional premium as may be determined by the DDA to the extent of change of user of the subject property.

c) As per the directions given by this Court, a meeting of 208th Screening Committee of the Appellant/DDA was held on 30.11.1999 and while considering the case of the Writ Petitioner, the Screening Committee took the decision i.e., (i) the plot may be allowed a general commercial as directed by the Court; and (ii) the other two plots No.277 and 279 should also be sold for general commercial. The said decision taken in the Screening Committee was communicated to the Writ Petitioner late Om Prakash Kapoor stating that the competent authority has accepted the request for conversion of land user from cold storage to general commercial and permitted use are guest house, storage, godown, warehousing and commercial office, cinema, motor garage workshop, flatted group industries etc.

d) The Writ Petitioner, thereafter, received a demand letter dated 07.10.2008 from the Appellant/DDA wherein the Writ Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,53,74,644/- as conversion charges. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petitioner, thereafter, filed another writ