*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

WP.(C) No.6258/2013

Decided on: 24.09.2014

VASUDHA GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Babanjeet Singh, Adv.

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.Ajay Verma, Adv. for R-1/DDA.

Ms.Chanchal Sharma, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.

This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the

respondent for quashing of order dated 19.07.2013 by virtue of which

the request of the petitioner for conversion of leasehold right in

respect of the flat No.D-1/04, Rajasthali CGHS, Pitampura, Delhi –

110034 was rejected.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had

purchased the flat in question from one Sh.Ramesh Kumar Mahajan

for a total consideration of Rs.25 lakhs on the basis of GPA &

Agreement to Sell. The e-stamp papers amounting to Rs. 1 lakh for

execution of these documents are purported to have been purchased

2014:DHC:4992

by the petitioner on 29.09.2011 and thereafter the GPA and the

Agreement to Sell were executed on 03.10.2011. Simultaneously

possession of the flat in question was also handed over to the

petitioner and the consideration exchanged. The petitioner applied for

registration of these documents to the respondent No.2 on 03.10.2011

itself and after completion of the formalities, the documents of sale by

way of registration of GPA & Agreement to Sell were actually

registered by the respondent No.2 on 13.10.2011. On 28.12.2011, the

petitioner submitted the application for conversion of rights in the

property in question from leasehold to freehold and as she did not

hear anything from respondent No.1, she became apprehensive that

her application would be rejected in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of

Haryana in SLP(C) No.13917/2009 decided on 11.10.2011.

Accordingly, on 10.04.2013, she wrote to the respondent No.1

bringing to their knowledge the fact that her case is not covered by

the judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd’s case (supra)

although the transaction of sale in question was registered on

13.10.2011. But once the transaction is registered, then it relates back

2014:DHC:4992

to the date when the GPA and the Agreement to Sell were executed.

For this purpose, the petitioner drew the attention of the respondent

No.1 to Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. The respondent

No.1 instead of considering the case of the petitioner favourably on

the basis of her written representation dated 10.04.2013, passed an

order on 19.07.2013, which is impugned in the present writ petition,

rejecting the request of the petitioner for conversion of rights in

respect of the property in question from leasehold to freehold on the

ground that the GPA and the Agreement to Sell were registered by the

Sub Registrar on 13.10.2011.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, filed the present writ petition.

On notice having been issued to the respondents, the respondent No.1

filed its affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner for such

conversion. The respondent No.2, who is the ex officio registering

authority, also filed a separate affidavit. The respondent No.2 took

the plea that as they do not maintain a record, therefore, he is not able

to state as to why the documents submitted by the petitioner being

GPA and the Agreement to Sell, though received on 03.10.2011, were

registered on 13.10.2011 and deficiencies in the documents were

2014:DHC:4992

found which were reported to the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is

contended by the respondent No.2 that Suraj Lamp & Industries

Pvt.Ltd’s case (supra)did not recognize the transaction of

SA/GPA/Will etc. as valid documents of sale after 11.10.2011.

4. So far as the respondent No.1 is concerned, it also took the plea

that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp &

Indus