$~7 (Appellate)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 344/2019 MUKESH GUPTA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv.

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Katyal, SC with Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harshpeet Singh Chadha and Mr. Hridyesh Khanna, Advs. for DDA CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 10.04.2026 CM APPL. 7520/2025

1. This is an application seeking adjournment of the matter which has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

CM APPL. 33750/2023 & REVIEW PET. 172/2023

2. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner seeks some time to acquaint himself with the matter.

3. Re-notify on 24 April 2026.

REVIEW PET. 56/2020

4. We have heard Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the review petitioner, at considerable length.

5. the judgment dated 6 January 2020, rendered by me in WP (C) 344/2019, of which review is sought, held that the petitioners came into possession of the lands in question under General Powers of Attorney, 1“GPA”,hereinafter executed in breach of the original allotment letters which were issued to persons in impecunious circumstances, prohibiting further lease or transfer of the land.

6. I had taken the view, therefore, that without proper permission of the DDA, such GPAs could not have been executed and the GPA holders could not, therefore, seek a right of conversion of the land from lease hold to free hold.

7. Mr. Sharma’s fundamental argument is that the decision is contrary to the existing legal position.

8. He has first drawn my attention to a circular dated 28 April 1994, issued by Land Division, Ministry of Urban Development which read as under: “No.H-11017/26/93-LD Government of India MinistryofUrbanDevelopment (LandDivision)

Dated: the28^th April,1994 To Shri S.Roy, Commissioner(LD)

Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, NewDelhi.

Sub: - Conversionofleasehold rights intofreehold.

I am directed to refer to the correspondence resting with your letter No. 27(7)/73-Lab. – Res dated 28.2.94 on the above cited subject and to say that the matter has been examined further but keeping in view the fact that decision to allow conversion in respect of properties as have changed hands on the basis of General Power of Attorneys, after recovery of surcharge at 1/3^rd of the conversion fee, having been taken with the approval of Cabinet to bring such transactions to surface and avoid uncertainty about such transactions as had taken place, it wouldnot be justifiedtoinsist on payment ofunearnedincreaseinsuch cases.

2. Further, it is a conscious decision taken with the approval of the Cabinet as clarified earlier also that conversion to freehold should be allowed in such cases after recovery of restoration charges and the surcharge as per the scheme. To deny this benefit would result in giving benefit to the law avoiding citizens who had not reported transactions. Such a situation cannot be justified. Moreover, the course of action suggested by you would not stand to legal scrutiny as advised by the legal experts. Therefore, in allowing conversion no financial loss or undermining the position of the lessor is involved rather this would result in transparent transactions and help the lease administering authorities and others inrealisingdues.

3. In this regard it may not be out of place to mention that these issues were discussed threadbare in the meeting held in the Ministry and attended by the representatives of the DDA. Decisions taken were after due consideration of all facts including decisionoftheCabinet inthis regard. Hence DDAshouldnot have raised the same issues time and again go ahead as per guidelines/clarifications issuedbytheMinistry.

4. You are, therefore, requested to allow conversion in such cases without further delay and avoid harassment to the applicants whohadmade applications inthis regard.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(B.R.DHIMAN)

UnderSecretarytothe Govt.ofIndia”

9. The above circular does not, in any manner, state that a