Misuse charges levied by authority are unsustainable when not timely addressed, and delay in processing applications cannot be penalized against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

CM APPL. 2779/2021, 32602/2021 & 26028/2022 in W.P.(C) 13388/2018 (Disposed off case)

1. The petitioner firm is invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, for the conversion of the plots bearing Nos. D-86/1 & D-87, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020 [Subject premises], to freehold, as per the application dated 29.06.2010. The petitioner, by way of this petition, had sought the following reliefs: -

“a) Pass necessary directions to quash and set aside the demand made by the Respondent vide letter dt. 26.09.2018; and pass necessary orders directing the Respondent to allow the Petitioner's Application for Conversion to Freehold dt. 29.06.2010 of the premises bearing no. D-86/1 & D-87, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020, in accordance with law.

b) Pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and in the interest of justice in favour of the Petitioner.”

BRIEF FACTS

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner firm submitted bid forms for Plots D-86/1 and D-87 during a public auction held by the respondent/DDA [Delhi Development Authority] on 28.11.1983, along with EMD [Earnest Money Deposit] of Rs.46,000/- and Rs. 44,000/-, respectively. On 19.12.1983, the respondent/DDA acknowledged and accepted the bids, calling for payment of the balance amounts, which the petitioner firm completed on 21.01.1984 (for D-87) and 29.02.1984 (for D-86/1). The possession of the plots was offered by the respondent/DDA on 23.07.1984 and was taken by the petitioner firm on 03.08.1984, as certified and countersigned by the respondent/DDA. On 12.10.1987, the respondent/DDA agreed to consider the petitioner firm’s request for amalgamation of the plots upon payment of Rs. 5,000/-, which was subsequently accepted on 15.10.1987. The building plans for the amalgamated plot were approved on 05.01.1988 [File No. 3(84)86/Blgd/91] after amendments were made, clearly showing the mezzanine floor as office space. The sanction letter emphasized that construction or use contrary to the approved plans was prohibited. Two office spaces, each measuring 10'-6" x 17'-4½", were sanctioned on the mezzanine floor. On 03.05.1990, a Perpetual Lease Deed for the amalgamated plots was executed between the parties.

3. The subject premises are owned by the petitioner firm, originally a partnership between Sh. Jitendra Nath and Sh. Vijendra Nath, both of whom are now deceased, with their respective legal representatives serving as the present partners.

4. The petitioner firm avers that the respondent/DDA conducted an initial inspection on 31.01.1996. As per an internal noting dated 12.02.1996, it was observed that the mezzanine floor was used for office purposes, and the basement was used for industrial purposes by M/s Universal Turbo Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Universal Turbo”), contrary to the prescribed non-industrial use. The noting recommended issuing a Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”); however, no such notice was served, nor was any alleged violation communicated to the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm furth