DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus GAURAV KUKREJA

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 24-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 4 S.C.R. 421 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
GAURAV KUKREJA 
(Civil Appeal No. 3124 of 2015) 
MARCH 24, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Urban Development: Conversion of property from c 
leasehold to freehold - Permissibility -
Owner-vendor 
agreed to sell his suit property and executed a General . 
Power of Attorney in favour of husband of the vendee -
Thereafter, vendor refused to execute the sale deed which 
led to filing of suit for specific performance by the son and D 
husband of the vendee - Compromise decree passed -
Based on compromise decree , respondent-son applied to 
ODA for conversion of suit property from leasehold to 
freehold - DOA refused conversion on the ground that 
respondent did not possess good title - Writ petition - High 
E 
Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that 
respondent is son of an agreement holder and as well as 
of holder of general Power of Attorney and, therefore, he 
was not a stranger to the transaction and that the condition 
of clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme stood satisfied in 
F 
the facts of the case - Held: Respondent was neither a 
holder of a power of attorney nor had any subsisting n·ght 
in the suit property - High Court issued direction for 
conversion mainly on the ground that the respondent has G 
got decree for specific performance of sale - High Court 
failed to appreciate that the decree was based on alleged 
compromise arrived at between the family members - High 
421 
H 
' . 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A Court erred in holding that respondent was entitled to apply 
for conversion of the property. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the suit for specific performance filed 
B by respondent and his father, DOA was not made a 
party to the suit despite the fact that it was within their 
knowledge that the property is a leasehold property 
under the control of DOA and cannot be disposed of 
without obtaining a prior permission from the DOA. In 
C terms of Section 15(a) of the Specific Relief Act 1963, 
the suit for specific performance can be filed by "any 
party" to the contract. In the instant case, suit for 
specific performance was file~ by the respondent and 
his father who admittedly were not the parties to the 
D agreement to sell. Vendor, during the pendency of suit, 
remained ex parte and the suit was decreed in terms 
of a compromise arrived be,tween the parties, all of 
whom were family members. The suit for specific 
performance was a collusive suit, where the 
E respondent and his father used the process of the 
court to get rid of the stamp duty, registration charges 
and unearned increase payable to DOA. [Para 10] [428-
A-E] 
F 
2. As per the decree for specific performance, sale 
deed to be executed by the defendant namely holder 
of leasehold right and holder of agreement to sell 
within the period of 30 days from the date of the 
decree and further directed to pay requisite stamp duty 
G and registration charges. Instead of complying with 
the order of the High Court and getting the sale deed 
executed, after making payment of registration charges 
and stamp duty, the respondent applied for conversion 
of the property through father of the respondent and 
H power of attorney holder and the same was rejected. 
\ 
f 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. GAURAV 
423 
KUKREJA 
The conversion cannot be sought for by a person who A 
Is not the owner of the property but is only residing 
in the premises. [Paras 11, 12] (428-F-G; 429-0,E] 
3. A scheme of conversion from leasehold system of 
land tenure into freehold was brought into force by the 6 
Government. In terms of Clause 13 of the Scheme, it 
is thus mandatory for a person to file a conversion 
application to have a power of attorney from the 
lessee/sub-lessee/allottee. 
Further in case of 
successive power of attorney, Clause 13 requires for c 
the proof of possession alongwith the linkages of 
original lessee/sub-lessee/allottee with the last power 
of attorney is established and attested copies of 
power of attorney be submitted. In the light of 
Conversion Scheme, DOA rejected the conversion D 
application on the ground that the respondent is not 
a power of attorney holder in respect of the suit 
property. The property cannot be converted from 
leasehold to freehold directly in the name of the 
respondent as he is neither a general power of E 
attorney holder nor a holder of agreement to sell. The 
High Court appears to have issu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.