Sahil Marwah & ORS. v. Union Of India

$~28 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2763/2015 SAHIL MARWAH & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr Y. P. Narula, Sr. Advocate with Ms Tara Narula, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through:

Mr Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms Vipra Bhardwaj and Mr Akhilesh Kumar, Advocates for R-1 with Ms Sujata Vadhera, Superintendent L&DO.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 15.12.2017 CM No.45496/2017 1.

Mr Narula, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has handed over a copy of the letter dated 07.12.2017 forwarded to the petitioners indicating that a total amount of `14,58,53,865/- is required to be paid for conversion of the property in question from lease hold to free hold. 2.

Mr Gogna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent also states that on payment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioners' application for conversion of the property would be processed. 3.

In view of the aforesaid statement, Mr Narula states that the petitioners would pay the aforesaid amount within a period of two weeks from today. He further states that this would be without any reservation to

recover any amount from the respondent and the petitioners' grievance would be fully satisfied with the conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold.

4.

Mr Gogna assures this court that with the payment of the aforesaid amount, the respondent would take the necessary steps for conversion of the property in question from leasehold to freehold. 5.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event, the petitioners make the aforesaid payment within a period of two weeks from today, the petitioners' application for conversion will be processed within a period of four weeks, thereafter.

6.

The petitioner would be at liberty to revive the present petition in the event the aforesaid order is not complied with. 7.

It is also noticed that the earlier orders passed by this Court have not been complied with by the respondent, and hence the petitioners would also be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in this regard if the petitioners' application is not processed as indicated above. 8.

Mr Gogna, learned counsel for the respondent states, on instructions, that the respondent fully concurs with the aforesaid directions. 9.

The petition and the pending applications are disposed of. 10.

The next date of hearing scheduled on 09.01.2018 is cancelled. 11.

Order dasti.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 15, 2017 MK