Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 11.02.2026 passed in CONT.CAS(C) 241/2026 and order dated 05.12.2025 in W.P.(C) 16214/2025 passed by this Court.

¶17

The controversy concerns the petitioner’s applications for conversion of their commercial premises from leasehold to freehold. It is submitted that substantial conversion charges have already been paid by the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent sought to raise a GST demand which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 16124/2025.

¶18

Vide the aforesaid order dated 05.12.2025 in W.P.(C) 16214/2025, the respondent was directed to process the petitioner’s application for

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 23/03/2026 at 11:58:53

¶21

conversion subject to the petitioners undertaking that they would honour the GST demand in the event they do not succeed in the writ petition.

¶22

The operative directions in the said order dated 05.12.2025 read as under:

¶23

“6. In any event, in the present case, the application of the Petitioner for conversion from leasehold to freehold need not be held back on this ground.

¶24

7. The undertaking of the Petitioner is recorded to the effect that if the Petitioner does not succeed in the present case, the demand for GST would be honoured as per the directions of this Court.

¶25

8. Let an affidavit of undertaking be filed to this effect by the Petitioner. Subject to the said undertaking, it is directed that the DDA shall process the application for conversion from leasehold to freehold.”

¶26

The requisite affidavit is stated to have been filed by the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid directions.

¶27

Vide order dated 11.02.2026 passed in CONT.CAS(C) 241/2026, the respondent undertook to take the requisite decision on the petitioner’s application and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the said date. However, the same has not been done till date; hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA, who appears on advance notice, during the course of hearing, handed over an affidavit stating that the directions contained in the order dated 11.02.2026 have been complied with. The said affidavit reads as under:

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 23/03/2026 at 11:58:53

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 23/03/2026 at 11:58:53

¶33

From the aforesaid, it is evident that the requisite internal/departmental approval for processing the petitioner’s application without payment of GST has been approved. However, it has been mentioned that the IDLI System (Interactive Disposal of Land Information System) is not working for all the applicants (pending cases or new cases). 11. The affidavit is also enclosed with an Office Order dated 19.01.2026. The same reads as under:

¶34

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 23/03/2026 at 11:58:53

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 23/03/2026 at 11:58:53

¶37

A perusal of the aforesaid Office Order dated 19.01.2026 indicates that only the receipt of fresh applications for free hold conversion have been put on hold by DDA w.e.f 02.01.2026, however, there is no impediment in consideration of the pre-existing applications.

¶38

As such, the Office Order dated 19.01.2026 does not pose any impediment to the consideration of the petitioner’s application for taking the requisite decision thereof. Also, the fact that the IDLI system is not working cannot possibly be an impediment; it is for the respondent to ensure that IDLI System is activated for processing the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated applicants.

¶39

In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to act in accordance with law, and in terms of the orders dated 05.12.2025 and 11.02.2026, and accordingly complete the aforesaid exercise for taking requisite decision on the petitioner’s application for conversion from lease hold to free hold.

¶40

The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶41

Let an affidavit of compliance be filed within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶42

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶43

MARCH 18, 2026/ at

¶44

This is a digitally signed order.

¶45

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 23/03/2026 at 11:58:53

Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. v. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tek Chand Narula & Ors. Vs Amit Kataria Land and Development Officer & Ors.

Sh. Balbir Singh Maan Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bansur Mahavidhyalaya & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Harsaran (Deceased) Thorugh His Lrs and Ors. Vs Sh. Vimal Verma

Dr Rajesh Kumar Saxena Vs Yogesh K Tyagi & Ors.

Hil (India) Ltd. Vs Bakshish Singh & Anr.

Rajkumari Vs Prog Yogesh K Tyagi & Ors.

Dr Purnima Gupta Vs Prog Yogesh K Tyagi & Ors.

Bansur Mahavidhyalaya & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Gaurav Bhutani Proprietor of Sumitra International Vs Central Board of Trustees & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Tyagi & Ors. Vs Dr. Mohit Tandon & Ors.

Namo Rathor Vs Sanjeev Khirwar & Ors.

Ca Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs Smt. Anandi Ramalingam & Ors.

Kalu Ram Saini Vs Govind Mohan and Others