In a significant legal battle, Vinay Kumar and L&DO were involved in a property conversion dispute that came before the Delhi High Court. The case revolved around the conversion of property no. 1/12-1/14 from leasehold to freehold. Both parties put forth their arguments, but the court’s decision has now been delivered. Let’s delve into the details of this complex legal matter.
Facts
- The respondents failed to produce any material supporting the claim that sub-division of properties requires clearance from the Ministry of Law and local bodies.
- Previous sub-divisions were allowed and properties have been converted into freehold.
- Mutation was carried out for plot no. 1, Block no. 90 on similar terms of the lease deed.
- L&DO accepted sub-division of the property after consultation with MCD and Ministry of Urban Development.
- Local bodies have recognized property nos. 1/12 to 1/14 as a single unit.
- Requests for mutation and conversion were made by stakeholders, including Vinay Kumar.
Arguments
- Petitioner argued that L&DO’s refusal to recognize part sale of property no. 1/12 and 1/13 violates the lease deed terms and converting property no. 1/14 from leasehold to freehold is illegal, discriminatory, and violates Article 14.
- Petitioner strongly argued for the conversion of property no. 1/12-1/14 from leasehold to freehold.
- Counsel’s arguments for petitioners are deemed to lack legal force.
- The Zonal Plan or Master Plan cannot override the terms of the lease deed.
- L&DO cannot refuse to record the sale of property no. 1/12 and 1/13 based on permission from Municipal authority when MCD recognizes them as separate units for various purposes.
- No valid re-entry exists for properties in plot no. 1, including property no. 1/14, 1/12, and 1/13.
- Petitioner argued that through adverse possession, Vinay Kumar and Subhash Kumar Jain, Prem Kumar Jain have ownership rights for more than 40 years since L&DO did not assert ownership during this period.
- No unauthorized construction found on property no. 1/14 as per breach notice, therefore L&DO cannot re-enter.
- Allegations of discrimination and violation of Article 14 by L&DO for refusal to convert property no. 1/12-1/14 to freehold deemed unfounded.
- Property no. 1/12-1/14 considered a re-entered property requiring joint application from co-lessees for mutation/conversion.
- The perpetual lease deed dated 31.10.31 allows unconditional transfer and sub-lease without L&DO permission.
- L&DO’s approval for conversion of other properties, not relevant to the current case, mentioned by petitioners.
- L&DO expected to mutate property no. 1/12 and 1/13 to Subhash Kumar Jain and Prem Kumar Jain, and convert property no. 1/14 to freehold for Vinay Kumar.
- Separate applications from Vinay Kumar and Subhash Kumar Jain, Prem Kumar Jain not entertained by L&DO as per Clause 4.
- Property no. 1/12-1/14 treated as a unified property under a specific site plan, with Vinay Kumar claimed as the owner of property no. 1/14 since the sale in 1963.
Analysis
- The Lessee must provide a copy of any deed of assignment, transfer, or sublease of the premises to the Lessor or Chief Commissioner of Delhi within one month.
- All assignees, transferees, and sublessees are obligated to adhere to the covenants and conditions outlined in the agreement.
- Conversion from lease hold to free hold is optional as per Clause 2.1 of the Brochure.
- The sale deeds executed by Vinay Kumar and others do not provide independent right for conversion.
- Application for conversion must be signed by all co-lessees as per Clause 4.
- Separate applications by different co-lessees for the same property are not permissible.
- All co-lessees must sign the same application for conversion.
- Only one application for each property is allowed as per Clause 4 of the Conversion Policy.
- Applications not signed by all co-lessees will not be accepted.
- The properties no 1/12, 1/13, and 1/14 are recorded as a single unit by the L&DO.
- Petitioners must apply jointly for the conversion of leasehold to freehold as per regulations.
- Both petitioners’ arguments were considered but deemed insufficient to support their case.
- The respondents did not re-enter the properties, and both petitioners have been in continuous possession.
Decision
- The petitioners are not entitled for grant of relief as prayed for.
- Both petitions bearing no W.P.(C) 6937/2013 and W.P.(C) 13812/2023 are dismissed along with pending application if any.
- Judgments/case law cited by the counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) 13812/2023 are not applicable to the present petitions.
Case Title: SUBHASH KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. (2024:DHC:4718)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-13812/2023
