Ramesh Rani & Anr. Vs D.D.A.

“a) A writ of certiorari thereby quashing the letters dt. 29.1.2003 demanding a sum of Rs. 7,77,003/- and letter dt. 2.8.2004 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,13,53,482/- and subsequent letters dt. 21.10.2004, 22.12.2004 and 7.4.2005 reiterating the said demand of Rs. 1,13,53,482/- (provisional) repeatedly, on account of misuse charges in respect of property bearing no. B-1/5A, Janakpuri, New Delhi.

¶12

b) A writ of mandamus thereby calling upon the respondent to convert the leasehold rights of the said property bearing No. B- 1/5A, Janakpuri, New Delhi into freehold and also to issue conveyance deed in favour of the petitioners.

¶13

c) Any other writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case, be also passed in favour of petitioners in interest of justice.”

¶14

The Petitioner No.1 had purchased the Plot bearing No. B-1/5A, Janakpuri, New Delhi (“ Property ”). Vide an Agreement to Sell dated

¶15

W.P.(C) 9075/2005 Page 1 of 4

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 07/05/2026 at 12:54:23

¶18

27.11.1987 from its previous owner, Sh. Shubh Karan Daas (“ Erstwhile Owner ”). On 04.12.1987, a registered Power of Attorney was executed by the Erstwhile Owner in favour of Petitioner No. 2. On 30.06.1995, the Petitioners paid a sum of ₹49,000/- vide Challan No.097870 and another sum of ₹40,244/- vide Challan No.097871 as composition fee demanded by the Respondent. On 01.12.1997, Petitioner No. 2 made an Application to the Respondent for conversion of the Property from leasehold to freehold and paid ₹1,77,151/- as conversion charges and ₹200/- as processing fee. On 14.01.1998, Respondent sent a letter to the Petitioners demanding payment of further amount for conversion of the Property from leasehold to freehold. Accordingly, the Petitioners paid a sum of ₹1,12,789/- on 03.06.1998. On 09.11.1998, the Respondent sent a demand of ₹2,79,939/- on account of composition fee which was also paid by the Petitioners on 12.08.1999.

¶19

On 12.10.1999, the Respondent made another demand of ₹37,792/- on account of interest on the balance payment of composition fee. Further, the Respondent assured the Petitioner that on payment of the said amount of ₹37,792/-, the conversion of the Property from leasehold to freehold shall be effected.

¶20

However, the Petitioners received a demand of ₹7,77,003/- on account of misuse charges from March 1999 to 28.06.1999 vide letter dated 29.01.2003 from the Respondent for the conversion of the Property from leasehold to freehold. Vide letter dated 02.04.2003, the said demand of ₹7,77,003/- was reiterated by the Respondent. The Petitioners responded to the Respondent’s demand by way of reply dated 21.05.2003 stating that as per the Policy notified by the Central Government, the case of conversion cannot be withheld on the basis of misuse at site. It was further stated that W.P.(C) 9075/2005 Page 2 of 4

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 07/05/2026 at 12:54:23

¶23

only the first floor of the Property was let out to Moongipa Software Limited vide lease agreement dated 10.06.1999 and prior thereto no activity of commercial nature was conducted in the Property.

¶24

Despite the reply dated 21.05.2003, the Petitioners received a demand of ₹1,13,53,482/- as misuse charges from March 1999 till 11.08.2003 vide letter dated 02.08.2004 from the Respondent. The said demand was reiterated vide letters dated 22.12.2004 and 07.04.2005. Accordingly, the Petitioners filed the present Petition. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that the Respondent could not have charged the misuse charges from the Petitioners as the same is contrary to the Respondent’s own Policy dated 05.05.2016. As per the said Policy in the cases where the report about misuse is available on the file and show cause notices were issued but the allottee had denied violations and no further inspection was undertaken by the Respondent, the affidavit from the Petitioner along with the recent photograph of the property and certification by way of affidavit from two witnesses / registered RWA certifying that there was and / is no misuse of the property may be accepted in lieu of inspection of DDA and no misuse charges to be levied.

¶25

The Petitioners claim that they are covered under the above Policy dated 05.05.2016. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners may be heard in the terms of the aforesaid Policy by the Respondent and the Petitioners are ready and willing to pay the misuse charges in terms of the said Policy. 8. For the said reasons, it is directed that the Respondent shall call the Petitioners and give a personal hearing and, thereafter, pass a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of hearing in accordance with W.P.(C) 9075/2005 Page 3 of 4

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 07/05/2026 at 12:54:23

¶28

the applicable Policies of the Respondent regarding the misuser charges including the Policy dated 05.05.2016. The Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Director of the Respondent on 07.05.2026 at 2:30 PM.

¶29

In view of the above, the demand raised by the Respondent vide letters dated 29.01.2003 and 02.08.2004 and the subsequent letters reiterating the said demand of misuse charges in respect of the Property bearing No. B-1/5A, Janakpuri, New Delhi stand quashed.

¶30

With the aforesaid direction, the Petition is disposed of. All pending Applications also stand disposed of.

¶31

TEJAS KARIA, J

¶32

APRIL 23, 2026 ‘gsr’

¶33

Page 4 of 4

¶34

W.P.(C) 9075/2005

¶35

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 07/05/2026 at 12:54:23

Ramesh Rani & Anr. v. D.D.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Rani & Anr. v. D.D.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Dr. Raman Mahindra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naresh Khorwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Rashtriya Nirbal Uthan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

Guru Nanak Public School Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Laxmi Narain. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sonya Surbhi Gupta Vs Jamia Millia Islamia

Msa Global Llc (Oman) Vs Engineering Projects (India) Limited

Kalyani Devi Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Lata Gupta and Anr. Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Vrinda Goel Vs National Testing Agency (Nta)

Ram Deni Singh Jagdish Singh Memorial Samiti Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Panchsil Mahila Ptc College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.