Anuradha Kalra Vs the Delhi Development Authority

“a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ and/or order quashing the demand letter bearing No.125 (359) 97/SFSAK-II dated nil (which as per the Respondent was issued on the basis of orders of the competent authority/ Vice-chairman, DDA dated 30.07.2012),at Annexure P-10 followed by the show cause notice bearing No. bearing No.l25 (359) 97/SFS/VK-II/238 dated 30.05.2016 vide which the Respondent has demanded a sum of Rs. 42,66,157.00 as a condition precedent for allowing the request of the Petitioner for delivery of possession of the flat bearing

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶16

no. 6001/1, Sector-D, Pocket-6B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and execution of Conveyance Deed in her favour;

¶17

b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ and/or order directing the Respondent to hand over the physical possession of the flat bearing No. 001/1, SectorD, Pocket-6B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to the Petitioner as payment of entire demand has long ago been made by the Petitioner in terms of Respondent's Execution Policy; c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ and/or order directing the Respondent to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the flat bearing No. 6001/1, Sector-D, Pocket-6B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi as payment of entire demand has long ago been made by the Petitioner in terms of Respondent's Execution Policy;

¶18

d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order and/or direction restraining the Respondent from transferring, and/or creating any right, title and interest in the flat bearing no. 6001/1, Sector-D, Pocket6B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi in favour of any other person/party; and…”

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that Ms. Dhanpati was registered with the respondent under 9^th SFS Category II flat and was allotted a flat in Sector D, Pocket 6B, Ground Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, vide demand-cum-allotment letter dated 20.02.1997. At the time of allotment, no specific flat number was given in the allotment letter,

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶22

however the floor was specified.

¶23

The said demand-cum-allotment letter prescribed 4 installments for payment of Rs. 8,80,000/-. The same is reproduced below:

¶24

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶25

Ms. Dhanpati, thereafter, sold the allotted flat, on 15.07.1997, to the petitioner by executing a registered Power of Attorney, Agreement to

¶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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶28

Sell and a will. Based on the said documents, the petitioner made payments to the respondent in terms of the schedule of the Allotment Letter and as and when demanded by the respondent.

¶29

After the demise of Ms. Dhanpati on 01.05.1998, the respondent addressed a letter dated 21.12.2001 to Ms. Dhanpati allotting her a specific flat bearing No. 6001/1 in Sector D, Pocket 6B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. She was further called upon to make payment of Rs. 2,230/- towards various charges. The petitioner paid the said amount on 12.02.2002 and thereafter on 10.12.2003 the petitioner intimated the respondent and sought possession, conversion and execution of Conversion Deed in favour of the petitioner based on the above documents.

¶30

It is the petitioner’s case that after keeping the petitioner’s request of issuance of possession letter pending for more than a decade, the respondent issued a letter bearing No. No.125 (359) 97/SFSA/K-II in 2013 seeking a sum of Rs. 44,26,138/- as the amount due and payable for handing over the possession and allotment.

¶31

Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the applicable policy in governing the flat in question. The scheme of execution of Conveyance Deed of the year 2006 reads as under:

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶38

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶39

He further draws my attention to the letter dated 02.09.2009 issued by the respondent, which reads as under:

¶40

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶43

He also draws my attention to the Minutes of Meeting of a similarly situated person dated 24.04.2008 reads as under:

¶44

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶47

Since neither the possession was handed over to the petitioner nor the demand letter for payment of additional cost was withdrawn, the petitioner challenged the said demand letter by filing a writ petition bearing No. 5072/2013, which was rejected by the Court on 29.06.2015.

¶48

The said order of rejection dated 29.06.2015 was challenged in LPA No. 04/2016, which was allowed and the operative portion reads as under:

¶49

“2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Inter-alia one grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has not decided the issue with respect to a conversion policy notified by the Ministry of Urban Development which was adopted by the respondent.

¶50

3. With respect to the submission, learned counsel for the

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶53

appellant concedes that in the writ petition foundation of the cause of action with reference to the conversion policy was not laid. However, counsel points out that in the rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit, the conversion policy was relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that during arguments conversion policy was relied upon. To make good the point, learned counsel draws attention to the written submissions filed before the learned Single Judge.

¶54

4. We find that in the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has not decided the issue with reference to the DDA's conversion policy. Rather than remand the matter for adjudication afresh by the learned Single Judge with reference to the conversion policy, since foundation of the cause of action in the writ petition was not founding on the conversion policy we have put it to learned counsel for the appellant whether the appellant would be agreeable to the appeal being disposed of after setting aside the impugned order and simultaneously permitting the appellant to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to revisit the Court by filing a fresh petition with respect to the grievance but with reference to the conversion policy.

¶55

5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant would be agreeable to this course of action.

¶56

6. In law, the foundation of a cause of action has to be in the writ petition. Pleadings in the rejoinder have to be limited

¶57

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶58

to dealing with the case set up by the opposite party. A different cause of action, not pleaded in the writ petition, cannot be laid in the rejoinder.

¶59

7. Since the appellant took the point in the rejoinder and since the learned Single Judge has not dealt with it interest of justice requires the appeal to be disposed of setting aside the impugned order and simultaneously dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant as withdrawn with liberty granted to file a fresh petition concerning the grievance of the appellant pleading a case under the conversion policy.

¶60

8. Ordered accordingly.

¶61

9. The appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated June 29, 2015. W.P.(C) No.5072/2013 filed by the appellant is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to file a fresh petition in terms of what has been noted hereinabove.”

¶62

Hence, the present petition is filed.

¶63

Mr. Malik, learned counsel, further states that, in terms of the policy of the year 2006, the GPA as well as the Agreement to Sell Holders were permitted to pay the 66.2/3% conversion charges and get the Conversion Deed executed in their favour.

¶64

Ms. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent, opposes the petition primarily on the ground that in the present case, the allotment has been made in favour of Ms. Dhanpati in block date of 20.02.1987 to 28.02.1987 and hence, the policy described above, is not applicable.

¶65

She, additionally, states that despite the policy not being applicable,

¶66

This is a digitally signed order.

¶67

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶68

the respondent took a liberal view and were ready and willing to allot the flat to the petitioner provided the payment of Rs. 44,26,138/- is made and the same is based on the current prevalent cost.

¶69

She also draws my attention to an additional affidavit, wherein it has been stated that even if the case of the petitioner comes within the purview of the policy, still the allotment cannot be made to the petitioner in view of Para 12(b) of the 2006 scheme wherein physical possession of the property had to be with the person named in the conveyance deed. Since in the present case, the possession is not with the petitioner, the policy will not be applicable. The relevant portion of para 12 reads as under:

¶70

“12. The execution of conveyance deed on free hold basis shall be allowed in the cases where allottee has parted with possession of the flat.

¶71

b) Proof of physical possession of the flat in favour of the person in whose name execution of conveyance deed is being sought on freehold basis shall be submitted.”

¶72

She further states that the factum of death of Smt. Dhanpati was never informed till the year 2003 to the respondent.

¶73

I am unable to agree with the same.

¶74

Even though it is stated that the allotment was made in the block dated of 20.02.1987 to 28.02.1987, there is no document on record to substantiate the same. Thus, the policy is squarely applicable in the present case. In fact, there is a demand-cum-allotment letter which shows that Application No. 004774 dated 20.02.1997 in favour of

¶75

This is a digitally signed order.

¶76

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶77

Smt. Dhanpati which shows that the petitioner was required to pay the demanded amount in 4 instalments.

¶78

The respondent has consciously permitted the execution of conveyance deed in favour of the GPA Holders on payment of Rs, 66.2/3% as penalty for the conversion charges. The same has also been paid by the petitioner.

¶79

The Minutes of Meeting dated 24.04.2008 shows that the issue with regard to execution of conveyance deed in favour of the GPA Holders/Agreement to Sell holder has duly been considered and acceded to as based in the case of Shri TP Oberoi v. DDA, W.P. (C) 4598/2005.

¶80

The said minutes of the meeting, also show that in the case of one Shri GC Sharda, the respondent DDA agreed to grant possession letter after charging of the penalty amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The facts of the case of Shri GC Sharda are identical to that of the petitioner.

¶81

The argument of the learned counsel of the respondent that in the light of paragraph 12 (b) of the 2006 policy, the petitioner cannot be allotted the flat in question does not hold much merit. Even though the rule says “ physical possession ” the same does not apply to the petitioner in the light of the law laid down in T.P. Oberoi (Supra). The relevant paragraphs read as under:

¶82

“8. The narrative of facts does not show any serious dispute between the parties about the essential facts. The allottee transferred his rights, and eventually those rights were acquired by the petitioner through a GPA transaction. He undisputedly paid the last instalment, including conversion

¶83

This is a digitally signed order.

¶84

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶85

charges. The property is freehold. The question is whether the DDA can refuse to hand over possession on the ground that there is no policy.

¶86

9. Clause 12 of the policy for conversion envisions different situations where conversion can be allowed in cases where the lessee/allottee has parted with possession, and even visualizes a specific fact situation where there are successive power of attorneys (clause 12 (c)) in which case, conversion would be allowed after verification of possession provided that the linkage of original allottee with the last power of attorney is established. Although this clause cannot directly apply to the facts of this case, since the allottee here had parted with his rights long ago, yet the intention of the DDA to recognize rights of beneficial owners and transferees emerges. Except possession, all the necessary ingredients required by the respondent, to convert the property, are present in this case.

¶87

The property too been converted. In these circumstanced, having regard to the fact that the petitioner deposited the amounts, including conversion charges, which were unreservedly accepted by the DDA, it would be inequitous to deny him possession.

¶88

10. In the above circumstances, normally the petition ought to have been allowed in terms. However, the DDA's concern, though not specifically articulated, appears to be that if possession is handed over unreservedly to the

¶89

This is a digitally signed order.

¶90

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

¶91

petitioner, it should not be held accountable at a later stage, if the allottee steps forth and claims his rights. This apprehension can be allayed by appropriate directions. Counsel for the petitioner had agreed upon instructions, to course of a suitable undertaking being furnished to indemnify the DDA in case of any such eventuality.”

¶92

All the necessary requirements with respect to conversion have been fulfiled by the petitioner. The petitioner has also paid the conversion charges and the penalty stipulated was also paid by the petitioner. In the judgement of T.P. Oberoi (Supra) , this court permitted the deliveryof possession and also the Conveyance Deed. For the said reasons, the petition is allowed.

¶93

The demand letter is quashed and the respondent shall execute the Conveyance Deed and shall hand over the possession of the flat bearing No. 6001/ 1, Sector D, Pocket 6B to the petitioner expeditiously and in any case not later than 6 weeks from today.

¶94

The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶95

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶96

FEBRUARY 26, 2026/DM

¶97

This is a digitally signed order.

¶98

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 09/03/2026 at 17:09:32

Anuradha Kalra v. the Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Kalra v. the Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Nk Jay Prakash Gupta Ser No 7773020 K Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anshul Aggarwal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Indupreet Thukral and Ors. Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Tushar Dev Vs Karvy Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Dev Narayan and Ors. Vs the Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority

Narendra Singh Rana Vs Union of India & Anr.

Apurva Rudra Sole Prorietor Global Marine Inspection Vs Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Ors.

Dps Society Vs UOI

Girish Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Piramal Finance Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

K.K.Rajput Vs D.D.A.

Anand Khattar Vs D.D.A. & Anr.

Subhash Chander Pahwa Vs Delhi Development Authority

Fresh and Healthy Enterprise Ltd. Vs Global Agrisystem Pvt. Ltd.