Bawa Sandeep Singh And ANR v. UOI And ANR

$~5 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 398/2012 & CM Nos.840/2012 (stay), 34828/2016 (for quashing breach notice dated 27.12.2010) BAWA SANDEEP SINGH AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Rakesh Saini, Advocate.

versus UOI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R D E R

% 28.11.2016 The petitioners, by the present petition, have impugned the notice dated 27.12.2010 and the subsequent demand letter dated 27.12.2011 requiring the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,79,406/- towards alleged breaches.

Subsequent to the challenge to the said demand notice, respondents had recalculated the amount towards breaches and, by letter dated 19.08.2016, revised the demand to Rs.30,63,018/-. The said demand had been paid on 29.08.2016.

Since the respondents have recalculated the demand and the demand has been paid, the demand letter dated 27.12.2011, as amended by revised demand letter dated 19.08.2016, stands satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the breaches, pointed out by notice dated 27.12.2010, are condonable. He submits that the petitioners have paid the demand upto 31.01.2017 and the petitioners shall approach the respondents for regularization of the condonable breaches and shall also remove the breaches that are not WP(C) 398/2012

condonable.

He further submits that a substitution application seeking substitution of the name of the legal heirs of the original lessee is pending with the respondents.

On the petitioners making the application to the respondents for regularization of the condonable breaches, the respondents shall consider the same expeditiously in accordance law.

The substitution application, filed by the petitioners, shall also be considered by the respondents expeditiously in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the conversion application was earlier filed by the original lessee alongwith the deposit of the conversion charges and the same are lying with the respondents. He submits that after the substitution, the petitioners would be moving an application seeking conversion of the property into freehold in their names and claim adjustment of the amount deposited by the original lessee alongwith their conversion application. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to expeditiously consider the application of the petitioners for substitution. As and when the application for conversion is filed by the petitioners, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and due credit shall be granted to the petitioners for the amount deposited by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petition and all the pending applications are, accordingly, disposed of.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2016 st WP(C) 398/2012