In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the petitions regarding property conversion filed by Subhash Kumar Jain and Urmila Jain have been dismissed. The court’s decision has significant implications for the matter at hand. Let’s delve into the details of this case and the implications of the court’s ruling.
Facts
- The petitioners, Subhash Kumar Jain and Urmila Jain (LR of Prem Kumar Jain) filed a petition challenging the actions of L&DO in not mutating property no. 1/12 and 1/13 in the records even after 60 years from the date of execution of registered sale deeds.
- Vinay Kumar had sold property no. 1/12 and 1/13 to Prem Kumar Jain, Raj Kumar Jain, Padam Kumar Jain, and Subhash Kumar Jain in 1963.
- The petitioners requested the property mutation since 1963 per the perpetual lease deed terms.
- L&DO failed to process the conversion application within the specified time frame after adequate fee deposit by the petitioners.
- The inspection conducted in 2012 by L&DO did not communicate results to Vinay Kumar.
- Petitioners contacted L&DO multiple times for conversion of their properties from leasehold to freehold.
- Subhash Kumar Jain and Prem Kumar Jain undertook conversion documentation and fee deposit for property no. 1/12 and 1/13.
- L&DO’s actions were deemed arbitrary and in violation of the perpetual lease deed’s terms and the petitioners’ fundamental rights.
- Discrepancies in property recognition and sub-division approval were highlighted in the legal challenge.
- The judicial review challenged L&DO’s refusal to convert property no. 1/12 to 1/14 from leasehold to freehold.
Arguments
- Petitioner argued that L&DO’s refusal to recognize the part sale of property no. 1/12 and 1/13 is a violation of the lease deed terms.
- The argument emphasized that the refusal to convert property no. 1/14 from leasehold to freehold is illegal, discriminatory, and against Article 14.
- The petitioner strongly advocated for the conversion of property no. 1/12-1/14 from leasehold to freehold.
- Plea was made based on the fact that L&DO has allowed similar conversions for other properties under unrestricted lease deeds.
- It was pointed out that the Zonal Plan or Master Plan cannot override the terms of the lease deed.
- The petitioner challenged L&DO’s requirement for municipal authority permission to record the sale of property no. 1/12 and 1/13, citing MCD’s recognition of separate units.
- Claimed there is no valid re-entry for any of the properties, and argued for adverse possession rights by current owners for over 40 years.
- Refuted L&DO’s re-entry rights based on lack of unauthorized construction on property no. 1/14.
- Contended that L&DO is bound to convert property no. 1/12-1/14 from leasehold to freehold.
- Argued against the necessity for all co-lessees to apply jointly for withdrawal of re-entry before mutation/conversion consideration.
- Petitioners’ counsel argued that the respondents should not be allowed to delay the matter and benefit from their inaction.
- The application for conversion should not be rejected based on re-entry as payments have already been made by the applicant.
- Counsel relied on several cases to support their arguments.
- Petitioners urged for direction to convert the property into freehold, change the title in records, and consider properties separately.
- Argument made that if breaches are rectified, re-entry cannot be sustained.
- Once property is mutated in petitioners’ names, MCD will sanction construction on the properties flagged for breaches.
Analysis
- The Lessee is required to provide a copy of the deed of assignment, transfer, or sublease within one month of such action.
- All assignees, transferees, and sublessees must adhere to the covenants and conditions outlined in the agreement.
- They are accountable for fulfilling all obligations specified in the agreement.
- Conversion from lease hold to free hold is optional as per Clause 2.1 of the Brochure.
- Sale deeds do not give independent right for conversion to certain individuals.
- Application for conversion must be signed by all co-lessees as per Clause 4.
- Separate applications by different co-lessees are not permissible.
- Only one application per property is allowed with signatures of all co-lessees.
- All co-lessees must sign on the same application for conversion.
- The properties no 1/12, 1/13, and 1/14 are recorded as a single unit in the L&DO records.
- Petitioners of both petitions needed to jointly apply for conversion from leasehold to freehold as per regulations.
- Arguments presented by the counsels for the petitioners were not sufficient to support their case.
- The respondents did not reenter the properties, and the petitioners have been in continuous possession.
Decision
- Petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for
- Both petitions bearing no W.P.(C) 6937/2013 and W.P.(C) 13812/2023 are dismissed
- Judgments/case laws cited by the counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present petitions
Case Title: VINAY KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER (2024:DHC:4718)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-6937/2013
