Delhi Development Authority through Its Chairman Vs Vasant Surgico Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.R.P. 159/2026, CM APPL. 35361/2026 & CM APPL. 35362/2026. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Mata, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Animesh Kumar Gaba, Mr. Jatin Sharma, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

VASANT SURGICO MEDICAL CENTRE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶8

O R D E R % 22.05.2026

¶9

This petition has been filed assailing order dated 23^rd February 2026, passed by the Civil Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts in Ex. 518/2018 (‘ Executing Court ’), rejecting the objections filed by Delhi Development Authority (‘ DDA ’)/ Judgment Debtor (‘ JD ’) to the Execution Petition filed by the respondent/Decree Holder (‘ DH ’).

¶10

The execution petition sought directions to DDA/JD to process the conversion application of the respondent/DH regarding Plot No. B, Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi ( hereinafter, ‘ subject property ’) and to execute the conveyance deed in favour of respondent/DH. These were made on the basis of a consent order, passed on 17^th October 2008.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 11:07:28

¶13

One of the issues raised by Mr. Ashwini Kumar Mata, Senior Counsel, for DDA/JD, was of pending dues towards unearned increase. However, this issue stood crystallized by way of consent order dated 17^th October 2008. Moreover, the said order was challenged in C.R.P. No. 43/2014 , whereby, this Court passed an order on 25^th February 2016, dismissing the revision petition, as also noticing categorically that no ground for review was made out. It was noted that DDA/JD had agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 23,91,238/- and it did not lie in their mouths to assail the order.

¶14

This was further challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 23113/2016, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 05^th January 2017. 5. This issue having reached its fruition and conclusion, respondent/DH filed Ex. 518/2018, in which objections were filed in 2019. 6. A new objection was then taken by DDA/JD, as regards the unauthorised use of the basement for hospital purposes in violation of the lease deed and encroachments in the service lane for guard room, etc. 7. Response filed by respondent/DH to the objections stated that the basement was being used as a waiting area and for storage purposes. In any event, the waiting area had been shifted to the ground floor and as on date, the basement was being used only for storage purposes.

¶15

As regards the encroachment, it was stated that the structure as shown in the photographs was, in fact, a urinal and even the said structure had been removed by respondent/DH.

¶16

Thereafter, by order dated 27^th September 2019, an inspection was carried out, which has been noted in their impugned order, while rejecting the objections. Impugned order has noted in paragraph 11 , that a fresh

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 11:07:28

¶19

inspection was conducted by DDA on 29^th February 2020, which recorded the basement as vacant/non-operational, guard room and platform on the backside to be already removed, building to be constructed up to the 2^nd floor and lastly, that the sanction plan was not produced at the time of inspection.

¶20

The impugned order noted that this report did not record any continuing use of the basement, nor did it flag any issues or misuse of the property. Moreover, the unresolved issues had already been taken care of by the consent order. Taking that view, the impugned order was passed and cost of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on DDA/JD.

¶21

Mr. Rajiv Ghawana , counsel for respondent/DH, points out that even otherwise, as per the scheme of conversion, issued by DDA/JD, clause 10 (iv) provides that conversion to freehold shall not be permitted in respect of properties and encroachment on government land. Considering that it had been removed, the question of various objections being sustained did not arise.

¶22

Mr. Ashwini Kumar Mata , Senior Counsel for DDA/JD, states that there is a construction on the property, which is not as per the sanctioned plan. However, DDA/JD cannot raise a continuing set of issues, despite the consent order being passed in 2008 and keep their objections simmering.

¶23

Even post conversion, in a freehold property, DDA is fully empowered to raise an issue relating to a breach of their regulations. Liberty in law subsists in the favour of DDA.

¶24

However, there is no reason as to why the execution should be stopped for conversion into freehold, particularly, considering the long history of litigation, which has stood crystallised in favour of respondent/DH

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 11:07:28

¶27

on numerous occasions.

¶28

In view of the same, petition stands dismissed. Pending applications (if any) are rendered infructuous.

¶29

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶30

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶31

MAY 22, 2026/RK/ sp

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2026 at 11:07:28

Delhi Development Authority through Its Chairman v. Vasant Surgico Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi Development Authority through Its Chairman v. Vasant Surgico Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs Mrs Manpreet Kaur

Prithipal Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through Its Ssecretary and Anr.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Pavitra Dugana & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Setia Since Deceased through Legal Heirs & Ors. Vs Mrs Alka Sachdeva

Veermati & Ors. Vs Sanjay & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Vs Smt Veermati Devi