$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1529/2020 & CM APPL. 69589/2024 ANITA AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Singhla and Ms. Bhawna Chopra Rustagi, Advocates.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naveen Raheja, Mr. Anant Vijay Singh and Ms. Apoorva Chandra, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 11.12.2025

1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to DDA to convert property bearing No. B-8, B Block, Main Market, Shopping Centre II, Phase I, Vivek Vihar, Delhi (‘subject property’) from leasehold to freehold as also to roll back the illegal claim of Rs. 6,85,453/- on account of misuser charges.

2. Case of the Petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition is that on 25.09.1969, mother of the Petitioner, namely, Smt. Ram Murti Devi received a letter from DDA to take over possession of the subject property. On 31.07.1971, father of the Petitioner, on behalf of his wife, sent a letter to DDA to execute the Lease Deed. On 19.08.1972, DDA wrote to Ram Murti to present herself before Sub-Registrar IV on 07.09.1972 for registration of the Lease Deed and on the said date, she signed on the Lease Deed and was assured by DDA that the Lease Deed will be sent to her after completion of necessary formalities. It is averred that the subject property was leased out to Ram Murti under a perpetual lease.

3. It is stated that on 14.09.1972 show cause notice was sent by DDA to Ram Murti as to why the lease be not cancelled for non-construction/belated construction of the property to which a response was sent on 28.09.1972 informing that a wrong site plan had been sent with the Lease Deed and requesting for issuing the correct plan. There was no response from DDA till 18.04.1984, when notice of misuse of the subject property by a tenant was sent to the Petitioner, despite the fact that as per DDA’s policy and noting in the present case by DDA dated 15.02.1985 that landlord cannot be held responsible for tenant’s misuse.

4. It is stated that pursuant to the notice, Ram Murti filed suit No. 375/1991 before the Trial Court, where interim order was passed on 14.12.1993 restraining DDA from cancelling Lease Deed as also from dispossessing Ram Murti from the subject property, except by due process of law till final disposal of the suit. Ram Murti also filed a petition under Section 14(1)(k) of Delhi Rent Control Act against the tenant but vide judgment dated 09.09.1997, petition was dismissed on the ground that DDA has the right to defend its properties from encroachment and take action under statutory provisions.

5. It is further stated that on 12.02.2001, suit No. 375/1991 for permanent injunction filed by Ram Murti was dismissed but thereafter appeal bearing RCA No. 44/2001 filed by Ram Murti was allowed on 22.11.2003, whereby suit was decreed restraining DDA from cancelling the Lease Deed dated 13.06.1972 and supplementary Lease Deed dated

08.10.1974. This judgment was not challenged by DDA.

6. It is stated that in August, 2003, DDA opened a scheme for conversion of commercial/industrial plots from leasehold to freehold and on 19.01.2012, Ram Murti applied for conversion after depositing Rs.2,59,055/- towards conversion charges. A further sum of Rs.7,56,284/- was deposited on 22.03.2012 followed by deposit of Rs.47,433/- on 12.06.2012 towards outstanding conversion charges, as sought by DDA. On 25.11.2012, Ram Murti passed away bequeathing the subject property in favour of the Petitioner, being the youngest daughter, by a registered Will and this intimation was given to DDA vide letter dated 11.12.2012 by the father of the Petitioner with a request to convert the property to freehold and transfer the same in the name of the Petitioner.

7. It is stated that on 23.04.2013, a letter was sent by DDA to the father of the Petitioner intimating that the Petitioner will be required to mutate the property in