$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15655/2004 S.C. GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Gayatri Virmani, Adv.

versus D.D.A. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Birbal Adv Mr. Sanjay Singh Adv for DDA Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Parvin Bansal. Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 19.02.2026 CM APPL. 61370/2025

1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking the following prayer(s):-

“(b) Direction to DDA make the conversion of lease hold to freehold as per application No. 354365 dt. 30.08.1996 of the plot No. B-4/228, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.”

2. The main petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 01.03.2024, wherein the following reliefs were sought:-

“i) to direct a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the letter dated 2/1/2002 whereby the lease of the premises bearing No. B-2/228, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi was illegally and arbitrarily cancelled by the respondents;

ii) to direct a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to convert the premises bearing No. B-4/228, Safdurjung Enclave from lease hold to free hold;

iii) to direct the respondents to not to levy and misuse charges on the petitioners as there is no misuse of the premises bearing No. B-4/228, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi by the petitioners;”

3. Vide judgment dated 01.03.2024, this Court allowed prayer No. (i) (as reproduced above) and observed that since the show cause notice DDA issued by the respondent/Delhi Development Authority (“ ”) was vague, the office noting shows that respondent/DDA has taken conflicting stance with regard to area being misused and no hearing was given to the petitioner, the cancellation of the lease deed was set aside. However, it was founded that the petitioner was misusing the premises and the respondent/DDA was directed to calculate misuser charges of 19.34 sq. meters with effect from 15.01.1986 till the date of cancellation and petitioner was directed to make the said payment along with restoration charges. It was further directed that only on payment of restoration charges and misuser charges, petitioner’s application for conversion from lease-hold to free-hold shall be decided by respondent/DDA.

4. The paragraph Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of judgment dated

01.03.2024 reads as under:-

“40. The noting of the respondent DDA shows that during inspection it has been found that an area of 19.34 sq. meters is being misused for storage/office purpose. Hence, for an area of 19.34 sq. meters, the misuser charges will have to be paid by the petitioner.

41. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of his client who is present in Court, is agreeable to payment of those charges from 15.01.1986 till the date of cancellation.

42. The respondent DDA is directed to undertake the calculation of misuser charges of 19.34 sq. meters with effect from 15.01.1986 till the date of cancellation within a period of 4 weeks from today and the petitioner shall make the said payment along with restoration charges, if any, within 6 weeks thereafter.

43. On payment of restoration charges and misuser charges, the application of the petitioner for conversion from lease-hold to free-hold shall also be decided by the respondent-DDA in accordance with law.

44. Subject to the above, W.P.(C) 143/2012 is allowed.”

5. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application being CM. APPL.

4533/2024 seeking rectification of the judgment dated 01.03.2024 on the ground that the misuser charges should be for an area of 12.71 sq. mts. and not 19.34 sq mts and misuser charges should be applicable from 29.09.1997 to 26.12.2001. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2025.

6. In the present application, the petitioner is seeking direction to DDA to convert the property of the petitioner from leasehold to freehold.

7. The said direction is already contained in the judgment dated

01.03.2024 and there is no need to reiterate the same. The applicant/ petitioner has not stated anywh