W.P.(C) No. 1531/2012

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: November 22, 2012

Pronounced on: November 26, 2012

+

W.P.(C) 1531/2012

JAGJIT SINGH AND ANR. ..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, Senior

Advocate with Mr.Preet Pal

Singh, Ms.Priyam Mehta,

Mr.Abhimanyu Chopra,

Advocates

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY …Respondent

Through:

Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey and

Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik,

Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

JUDGMENT

1.

Vide Communication of 5^th January, 2012 (Annexure P-24)

respondent has deferred the conversion of Plot No.26, Pocket 5A,

Sector 25, Rohini, Delhi (henceforth referred to as subject premises)

from leasehold to freehold while requiring petitioner to first obtain

permission of sale from competent court in respect of sale of subject

premises by or on behalf of mentally ill person.

2.

Challenge to aforesaid impugned Communication (Annexure P-

24) is on the basis of medical certificate of 13^th August, 1999

(Annexure P-1) declaring that one of the sellers of subject premises i.e.

Mukesh son of Late Narain Singh is suffering from severe degree of

2012:DHC:7016

W.P.(C) No. 1531/2012

Page 2 of 10

mental retardation i.e. 75%, which excludes applicability of The

Mental Health Act, 1987 as the definition of 'mentally ill person',

specifically takes out of its purview 'mental retardation'.

3.

Learned senior counsel for petitioners invites the attention of

this Court to the definition of 'mental retardation' as provided in The

Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (hereinafter

referred to as The Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999)¸ which is as under:-

4.

Mental illness, as defined in Section 2(l) of The Mental Health

Act, 1987 reads as under:-

5.

The precise submission of learned senior counsel for petitioners

is that a bare reading of the afore-reproduced definition of mental

illness and mental retardation makes it clear that these are two

different ailments of same species but are governed by two different

enactments. That is to say, that cases of mental illness are covered by

The Mental Health Act, 1987 and matters of persons suffering from

Disabilities Act, 1999. Impugned order (Annexure P-20) which

requires petitioner to approach the District Court concerned to obtain

2012:DHC:7016

W.P.(C) No. 1531/2012

Page 3 of 10

permission for sale of subject premises under The Mental Health Act,

1987 is thus assailed in this writ petition.

6.

It is the case of petitioner that the requisite permission under The

Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 giving no objection to sell the share of

'mentally retarded person' i.e. Mukesh through his legal guardian of

subject premises has been already obtained as per Certificate of 20^th

October, 2007 (Annexure P-10)by the Local Level Committee, i.e. the

competent authority under The Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999.

7.

Respondent in its counter affidavit maintains as under:-

8.

The reason disclosed in the counter affidavit by respondent for

not accepting petitioners' application for conversion of subject

premises from leasehold to freehold is that there is no provision in The

Committee or Board for recommending/tendering no objection for sale

of the property of mentally retarded person.

9.

In support of the afore-noted stand taken in the counter affidavit

by respondent, learned counsel for respondent asserts that as per

2012:DHC:7016

W.P.(C) No. 1531/2012

Page 4 of 10

Section 59 of The Mental Health Act, 1987 petitioners have to

approach the concerned District Court for obtaining permission for sale

of subject premises and submit it to respondent who shall thereafter

process petitioners' application for conversion of subject premises from

leasehold to freehold.

10.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal

of the material on record and the decision