The court upheld that the conversion from leasehold to freehold cannot occur while the property is under re-entry and pending legal disputes, as specified in the Scheme's provisions.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside letter No. 398 issued by the respondent dated on 21st March 2007 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for conversion of her premises from leasehold to freehold.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. A brief background of the case which has led to the filing of the instant petition is delineated hereafter:

I. The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing Plot No. 106, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi which was allotted/leased out to M/s Premier Enterprises (hereinafter "the lessee") vide Perpetual Lease Deed dated 18th August 1992 through its proprietor Smt. Pushplata. The petitioner is also the General Power of Attorney holder (hereinafter "GPA") for the lessee. The lease for the premises in question was cancelled by the order of the respondent no. 1/Lt. Governor of Delhi, under which the respondent no. 2 functions.

II. By an ex-parte order dated 28th May 1998, with corrigendum dated 30th June 1998, of the respondent no. 2, the aforesaid Lease Deed was cancelled on the ground that then lessee had sold the premises in question without the prior permission of the respondent and that the premises was being used for purposes other than stipulated under the Lease Deed. It is the case of the petitioner that she came to know about the passing of the ex-parte order against her and the lessee only when she received a notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter "PP Act"). Proceedings were, accordingly initiated under the PP Act before the Estate Officer.

III. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the respondent no. 1 on 3rd January 1999, requesting for revocation of the ex-parte cancellation order and restoration of the Lease Deed so cancelled. Subsequent representations were made by the petitioner to the Lt. Governor vide representation dated 5th August 1999 and before the respondent on 11th September 2001 was made for restoration of lease deed.

IV. The matter before the Estate Officer came to a conclusion by passing of the impugned order dated 13th February 2003, whereby, proceedings for eviction of the petitioner were ordered to be initiated after observing on essentially the grounds, first, that reasonable opportunities were given to the petitioner to present their case before cancellation of the lease and completion of these proceedings, however, no response was submitted by them, secondly, that the petitioner was not running the industry for the purposes for which the lease was granted and plot was allotted to it and hence, it violated the terms of the lease, and thirdly, that Smt. Pushplata and Smt. Soma Rani/petitioner were unauthorized occupants of the premises in question under the PP Act.

V. Aggrieved by the said order of the Estate Officer, an Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court, which also came to be decided against the petitioner by the passing of the