M/S CIVIC ENGINEERS (INDIA) vs SURENDER L. MEENA
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 03 March 2025
Judgment pronounced on : 24 March 2025
+ CONT. CAS(C) 983/2022, CM APPL. 20768/2024 & CM APP. 57633/2024
M/S CIVIC ENGINEERS (INDIA) ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv.
versus
SURENDER L. MEENA …. Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Shukla, and Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G E M E N T
1. The present petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Acts, 19711, read with Section 215 of the Constitution of India, 1951, has been preferred by the petitioner alleging that the respondent, who is an official of the Delhi Development Authority2, has committed contempt of the order/directions dated 31.05.2022 in W.P.(C) 7412/2014, passed by this Court.
1 CC Act
2 DDA
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner herein is a partnership firm and Sh. Rajeev Arora is one of the partners of the said firm. The petitioner had filed W.P.(C) 7412/2014 seeking direction against the DDA to consider the application of the petitioner for conversion of the first floor of the flat, bearing No. B-9, Saket, New Delhifor conversion of the first floor of the flat, bearing No. B-9, Saket, New Delhifor conversion of the first floor of the flat, bearing No. B-9, Saket, New Delhi3. The petitioner places reliance upon the circular dated 05.05.2015
4. The petitioner submits that this Court, vide order dated 31.05.2022, in the aforesaid writ petition, in view of the statement made by the counsel for the DDA, whereby it was acknowledged that the petitioner is eligible for consideration in terms of the circular dated 05.05.2015, directed that the subject property be converted from leasehold to freehold within a period of three months from the date of the order, subject to the petitioner fulfilling all requisite formalities. It was further explicitly observed in the order dated 31.05.2022 that the DDA shall take into consideration the prevailing circumstances while expeditiously processing the petitioners case.
5. The petitioner states that he received a letter dated 29.06.2022 on 02.07.2022, wherein the DDA directed him to submit the approved sanctioned building plan of the subject property issued by the Local
3 Subject Property
4 No.F.1 (Misc)/Floorwise Conversion/2011/DDA/74
Competent Authority. In response, the petitioner, vide letter dated 02.07.2022, informed the respondent/DDA that the requisite documents had already been submitted earlier, vide letter dated 26.11.2012, and were on record. Nevertheless, for the sake of expediency, he resubmitted the sanctioned building plan along with a copy of the letter dated 26.11.2012.
6. The petitioner states that the respondent/DDA did not comply with the order dated 31.05.2022, which was not complied within the stipulated time period of three months, compelling the petitioner to file the present contempt petition.
STAND OF RESPONDENT/DDA
7. In its counter affidavit dated 15.12.2022, the respondent/DDA states that the subject property was allotted in 1972 to Sh. Satjit Singh under the Malviya Nagar Extension Residential Scheme. It is further stated that under the Floor Wise Scheme, the DDA received a conversion application from Sh. Rajiv Aroras GPA5 in favour of M/s Civic Engineers for the first floor. As per the records, Sh. Rajeev Arora, as the mutatee, had executed a GPA and Agreement to Sell for the entire plot in favour of a builder, who subsequently constructed flats and sold them. Thereafter, the builder, M/s Ocean Construction Industries Ltd., executed a second GPA/Agreement to Sell in favour of M/s Civic Engineers.
8. The respondent/DDA further submits that the Saket area has been de-notified by the DDA, and the records of its Building Section
5 General Power of Attorney
have been transferred to the MCD 6 along with all related services. In compliance with the order dated 31.05.2022, the respondent/DDA inspected the subject property and found that the property comprises a basement, ground floor, first floor, and second floor, with two portions existing on each floor. However, conversion applications have been received only for one flat on the first and second floors, respectively.
9. It is stated that the respondent/DDA, vide letter dated 10.10.20227 , sought confirmation from the Deputy Commissioner, MCD (South Zone), regarding the approval and genuineness of the building plan of the subject property, specifically whether the construction of two flats on one floor was duly approved. The respondent/DDA submits that it has complied with the directions issued vide order dated 31.05.2022, and pursuant thereto, the process of verifying the genuineness of the building plan is underway in accordance with the circular dated 05.05.2015. However, a final decision can be taken only upon receipt of the report from the MCD.
10. The respondent/DDA issued an order on 12.07.2023, wherein it was observed that the sanctioned plan of the subject property had been approved by the DDA (Building Section) and it was decided to seek comments from the DDAs Building Section to confirm whether two flats had been sanctioned on one floor or not. Meanwhile, a reply from the Deputy Commissioner (South Zone), MCD, was received vide letter dated 09.05.2023, stating that, “It is to inform that as per record available with the Bldg. (HQ), the Bldg. Plan of the subject Property
6 Municipal Corporation of Delhi
7 Bearing reference no. F 27 (42) 70/LAB (R)/DDA/FF11607
was sanctioned vide DDA file No. 88/18/85 dt. 10.01.1986. Subsequently, the Bldg. Plan was revised sanctioned on 25.05.1987 by DDA. As per Sanctioned Bldg. Plan, the details are as under:
(i) Basement – for domestic storage only (ii) Ground Floor – 02 dwelling units (iii) Mezzanine Floor – for domestic storage only (iv) First Floor – 02 dwelling units (v) Barsati Floor – 01 dwelling unit.”
11. The respondent/DDA further states that the subject property were inspected, and a pro forma note dated 18.08.2023 was prepared by the inspecting team, and it was found that the subject property had been sub-divided into two parts: one part comprised a basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor, and third floor, while the other part consisted of a basement, ground floor, first floor, and second floor. It was also recorded in the note that a complete inspection could not be conducted as no responsible person was available at the site. Consequently, the counsel for the respondent/DDA submitted this information before this Court during proceedings and recorded on 12.01.2024 in the order. This Court further granted liberty to the respondent/DDA to conduct an inspection of the property, with a direction to submit a site plan clearly indicating the extent of construction on the subject property.
12. The respondent/DDA, issued a notice dated 19.03.2024 to the petitioner, informing them of a joint inspection scheduled for 27.03.2024. and eventually it was conducted on 22.04.2024 to ascertain the extent of division and specific violations concerning the sanctioned plan approved by the respondent/DDA; and the MCD, in its report dated 29.07.2024 regarding the joint inspection of the subject property, stated as follows:
No.: 1294/Bldg.-II/SZ/2024 Date:29/07/2024
Shri Pankaj Kumar Bhagat
Deputy Director LAB (Resdl.),
Delhi Development Authority,
C-II Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi 110023
Subject: Joint inspection in respect of Plot No. B-9, Malviya Nagar Extension (Saket) measuring 800 sq. yards.
Reference: Cont. CAS (C) 983/2022 titled as Civic Engineers (India) Vs Surender L Meena.
Sir,
Please refer to your Notice bearing No. F. No. LD/LABR/0001/2023/SKT/F27-0/o DO (LAB – Resdl.)/286 dated 10/04/2024; whereby requesting to attend or depute the concerned official to attend the joint inspection on 22/04/2024 at 11:00 AM, so as to ascertain whether the abovementioned property has been constructed as per sanction plan approved by the competent authority or not.
In this regard, it has been reported to the undersigned that as per schedule the site, in question was inspected and the existing construction compared w.r.t. hardly visible copy of sanctioned building plan dated 19/05/1987, as sanctioned by DDA and there found following deviations/ irregularities against the sanctioned plan:-
1. The dimension of plot is not as per sanction plan (exceeded in size).
2. Positioning of dwelling units found changed.
3. The size of front balcony found extended.
It is being informed accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Asst. Engineer (Bldg.)
South Zone.
LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent/DDA has falsely claimed that the building plan for the subject property was sanctioned by the MCD and has unnecessarily sought clarification from it. It is contended that the respondent/DDA itself sanctioned the building plan for Plot No. 9, Block-B, Malviya Nagar Extension, Saket, New Delhi, vide File No. F.88(18)85 dated 19.05.1987, approving two dwelling units each on the ground and first floors, one on the barsati floor, two in the basement, along with two staircases and mezzanine floors so much so that the respondent/DDA also issued the Occupancy Certificate on 08.08.1988, explicitly confirming this approval. 14.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the respondent/DDA has deliberately concealed the Circular dated 09.04.20088, wherein the relevant clauses relied upon by the petitioner are as follows: –
8 No. F. 26(1)/07/Coordn(LD) /67
(a) Conversion will be allowed without any site inspection. Site inspection should be carried out only if there are previous notings in the file or specific complaints regarding unauthorized constructions or misuse in the file.
(b) Conversion of leased properties irrespective of any building violations or use violations will be allowed and a letter will be sent to MCD or Building Department of DDA for taking appropriate action as per rules. x x x x x
(k) Conversion is allowed on the basis of completion certificate or Form D. If Completion Certificate or Form D is not available, conversion is being allowed on the basis of house-tax assessment order along with supporting documents. A site inspection should be carried out only where conversion is being sought on the basis of House-Tax Assessment order where built up area is not indicated and in case of Self Assessment of House-Tax on unit method adopted by MCD w.e.f. 1.4.2004. However, the scope of inspection should be limited to ascertain whether allottee has utilized / constructed 100% FAR in commercial & industrial plot and 1/3rd in residential plots.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that on 23.11.2023, the counsel for the respondent/DDA orally stated before this Honble Court that a portion of the ground floor of B-9, Saket, New Delhi, was being used as a Toddler Home, and, as such, the respondent/DDA could not proceed with the conversion of the petitioners flat with which he has no connection and such stand is in direct contravention of its policy dated 09.04.2008, which explicitly provides that conversion shall be carried out irrespective of the use of the premises.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
17. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent/DDA is in deliberate and wilful defiance of the directions of this Court dated 31.05.2022.
18. First things first, it is clear that W.P.(C) 7412/2014 was disposed of on statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA that according to the circular dated 05.05.2015, the case of the petitioner will be considered and the subject property will be converted from leasehold to freehold, subject to the fact that all other formalities/compliances are done by the petitioner. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner vide its letter dated 26.11.2012 after applying for the conversion of the subject property had once again provided all the requisite documents to the respondent/DDA on 02.07.2022. 19. Secondly, it is an undeniable fact that sanction for the construction of the subject property was given by the respondent/DDA in terms of letter dated 10.01.1986, pursuant to an application for sanction submitted by the petitioner dated 22.11.1985. The construction was permitted to be completed by 01.07.1988. A bare perusal of the sanctioned plan placed on the record reveals that, insofar as first floor of the subject property is concerned, the construction of two dwelling units was permitted, each comprising three bedrooms, a kitchen, and a drawing-cum-dining room. The plan also demonstrates that ingress and egress to the first floor were provided separately on each side, rather than through the middle.
20. It is also an admitted fact that the occupancy certificate dated 08.08.1998 was issued in terms of Appendix F, Form J, as per by-law No. 7.6. This certificate indicates that the first floor was approved for two drawing/dining rooms, four bedrooms, two kitchens, four toilets, two lobbies, two lounges, and two passages, with the staircase positioned on the diametrically opposite side for independent access to the first floor, and not through the middle, at the cost of repetition.
21. It is also evident from the record that the respondent/DDA had conducted a joint inspection on 22.02.2012, pursuant to the notice dated 03.02.2012, and no unauthorized construction was found on the subject property for its conversion from leasehold to freehold. It is manifest that the insistence by the respondent/DDA, after the passing of directions by this Court on 31.05.2022, to involve the MCD is a complete eye-wash and a deliberate attempt to re-ignite issues that had already been settled, particularly in view of the relevant circulars that are clearly applicable to the issue in question.subject property for its conversion from leasehold to freehold. It is manifest that the insistence by the respondent/DDA, after the passing of directions by this Court on 31.05.2022, to involve the MCD is a complete eye-wash and a deliberate attempt to re-ignite issues that had already been settled, particularly in view of the relevant circulars that are clearly applicable to the issue in question.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER (LD)
No. F. 26(1)/07/Coordn(LD) /24 Dated 31st March, 2008
CIRCULAR
The conversion policy was formulated by MOUD in 1992 and circulars on the subject have been issued from time to time by DDA. In order to streamline the process of conversion cases, the gist of relevant instructions issued from time to time with necessary clarifications are re-produced below:
(a) Conversion will be allowed without any site inspection. Site inspection should be carried out only if there are previous notings in the file or specific complaints regarding unauthorized constructions or misuse in the file.
(b) Conversion of leased properties irrespective of any building violations or use violations will be allowed and a letter will be sent to MCD or Building Department of DDA for taking appropriate action as per rules.
(c) However, in case of commercial property, unauthorized construction within plot area may be taken as misuse since it tantamounts to increase in usable area / FAR.
(d) Conversion will be allowed after recovery of past misuse charges as per policy without earlier demanded or not.
(e) In the cases where allotment has been cancelled or lease has been determined on account of unauthorized sale, conversion will be allowed after obtaining approval of Competent Authority for restoration of allotment / lease deed and on recovery of Restoration Charges.
(f) If lease has been determined and allotment has been cancelled on account of unauthorized construction and misuse, the lease will be restored without insisting on removal of breaches and conversion and subject to payment all penal charges. However, in the cases where GPA and Agreement to Sell has been made after determination of lease deed or cancellation of allotment, in such cases, the request of conversion will be entertained.
(g) In case of unauthorized encroachment on public land, conversion shall be allowed only after removal of encroachment and recovery of damage till the date of removal of encroachment. (h) In the cases where lease have been determined or allotment have been cancelled after the date of GPA or Agreement to Sell, conversion may be allowed subject to recovery of restoration charges and other dues payable by the lessee.
(i) In case of any dispute regarding title of property, conversion will not be allowed and the applicant will be advised to settle their claim before the court of law as DDA is not a forum to settle such issues.
(j) In case complaints are received against conversion, the complainant will be given an opportunity to prove his claim. If the complainant does not appear despite giving reasonable opportunity, conversion will be allowed.
(k) Conversion is allowed on the basis of completion certificate or Form D. If Completion Certificate or Form D is not available, conversion is being allowed on the basis of housetax assessment order along with supporting documents. A site inspection should be carried out only where conversion is being sought on the basis of House-Tax Assessment order where built up area is not indicated and in case of Self-Assessment of House-Tax on unit method adopted by MCD w.e.f. 1.4.2004. However, the scope of inspection should be limited to ascertain whether allottee has utilized /constructed 100% FAR in commercial & industrial plot and 1/3rd in residential plots.
(l) In case of unauthorized construction and misuse, irrespective of any building violations or use violations of Master Plan,the conversion of all leased properties would be permitted subject to recovery of misuse charges whether earlier demanded or not. The violations of building bye-laws or master plan is a subject matter of Enforcement Branch, MCD/DDA.
No site inspection should be carried out before allowing conversion except if in the file or in the survey report of any document establishes that premises is being misused. In such cases, site inspection should be carried out to ascertain the area and period of misuse for calculating misuse charges.
(m) In order to ascertain clearance of all the dues, the Lease Administration Officer before execution of the conveyance deed must ensure that all the payments received have been realized / verified and no dues report obtained from Finance Wing. (n) Where a Show Cause Notice is issued for unauthorized sale for committing breach of terms and conditions of the lease deed and thereafter, conversion application is received from GPA, the Show cause Notice shall be deemed to be withdrawn and conversion applications be processed.
(o) House Tax receipts issued by MCD after adoption of Self House Tax Assessment on Unit Method shall not be considered as proof of physical possession for the purpose of conversion.
All concerned officers should dispose of conversion application keeping in view the above parameters / instructions.
Sd/-
31.3.2008
(Asma Manzar)
Commissioner (LD)
1. Director (RL).
2. Director (Lands)
3. Director (CL)
4. Director (Housing)-I
5. Director (Housing)-II
6. F.A.(H)
7. Director (LC)
8. All Dy. Directors of LD / Housing Deptt.
9. P.S. to P.C. for kind information of the latter.
{Bold portions emphasized}
22. A bare perusal of the aforesaid circular reveals that, in accordance with the policy of the MoUDirrespective of any building violations or use in violation of the Master Plan the conversion of all leased properties would be allowed, subject to the recovery of misuse charges, whether previously demanded or not, in addition to appropriate action by the MCD. 9 in 1992, conversion was permitted without any inspection of the premises, based on the completion certificate or Form D. In any case, it was also stipulated that, regardless of unauthorized construction or misuse
9 Ministry of Urban Development
23. At this stage, it would also be relevant to refer to the Circular dated 05.05.2015, which reads as under:
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER (LA)
No.F.1 (Misc)/Floorwise Conversion/2011/DDA/7.1 dated 5.5.15
CIRCULAR
It has been observed during implementation of policy regarding floorwise conversion circulated vide No. S.1/20/2014/OSB/ 85 dated 20.8.2014 that there is some confusion as to whether conversion can be allowed in cases where more than one dwelling unit has been constructed on one floor and whether it is to be treated as sub-division of plot or not.
It is clarified that construction of more than one flat/shop/ dwelling units on plot may not be treated as sub-division or plot wherein construction of floats/shops/dwelling units on plots has been made as per sanctioned building plan after getting approval from the concerned local body. Henceforth, in such cases, where the building plan of a plot, has been sanctioned/approved by the local body concerned for construction of a dwelling units/flat/shop or floors as a multi-storeyed Group Housing Complexes/multi-storeyed Commercial Complexes, the conversion into freehold may be allowed.
Sd/-
(Asma Manzar)
Commissioner (LA)
Copy to:-
1. OSD to VC;
2. Engineer Member, DDA;
3. Finance Minister;
4. Commissioner (LD);
5. All Directors of LD Department;
6. Director (LC);
7. Director (Systems) with the request to upload on the website of DDA
Sd/-
Commissioner (LA)
24. A bare perusal of the aforesaid circular leaves no room for any objections raised by the respondent/DDA in the present matter. In light of the aforesaid circular, the officials of the respondent/DDA have committed further deliberate misconduct by issuing a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner dated 10.11.2023, alleging that the subject property had been sub-divided in an unlawful manner, without explaining as to how and in what manner the circular dated 05.05.2015 and the earlier one dated 09.04.2008 were not applicable. 25.
26. Much was sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA that a bare perusal of the photographs would indicate that the subject property has been sub-divided. However, even upon examining the front facade of the building, it cannot be concluded that the property has been sub-divided in the manner as alleged by the respondent/DDA or that it comprises two separate buildings. The crux of the matter is that, even during the joint inspection conducted by officials of the DDA and MCD during the pendency of this case, no report indicated any unauthorized construction, encroachment, or deviation from the sanctioned plan, which, at the cost of repetition, was granted by the respondent/DDA.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the concerned official of the DDA is guilty of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions of this Court. The official in question has employed unconscionable and deliberate measures to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of this Courts directions dated 31.05.2022.and deliberate disobedience of the directions of this Court. The official in question has employed unconscionable and deliberate measures to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of this Courts directions dated 31.05.2022.28. Hence, the concerned official of the respondent/DDA is directed to appear before this Court in person on 21.04.2025 at 12.30 P.M. to show cause and hear as to what punishment and sentence be awarded to him/her in accordance with law.
29. The present contempt petition along with pending applications stands disposed of.
30. Re-notify for further proceedings on 21.04.2025 at 12.30 p.m.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
MARCH 24, 2025
Sadiq/Ch