Rajiv Mehra And ANR v. Land And Development Office And ANR

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12277/2015 RAJIV MEHRA AND ANR ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Preet Pal Singh, Adv.

versus LAND AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE AND ANR .... Respondent Through Mr.Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, Adv. for L&DO.

Mr.R.N. Vats, Adv. with Ms.Pooja Kalra, Adv. for NDMC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 09.05.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioners have sought a direction to respondent no.1, to issue appropriate orders to respondent no.2 to follow the guidelines/policies etc. of respondent no.1 in terms of Gazette notification dated 24th November, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, and convert the property of the petitioners bearing Shop No.3-B, Khan Market, New Delhi, from leasehold to freehold in favour of the petitioners in terms of his conversion application dated 11th February, 2004. Mr.R.N. Vats, learned counsel for NDMC, submits that the respondents are prepared to convert the petitioners' property from leasehold to freehold, subject to the petitioners depositing the amount demanded from them vide letter dated 16th November, 2017, in respect whereof a detailed break up has also been provided to the

petitioner vide letter dated 13th April, 2018. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the said demand is exorbitant and is not in consonance either with the respondent no.1's own guidelines or with their stand before the Supreme Court in WP (C) No.4677/1985. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents that they are prepared to convert the petitioners' property from leasehold to freehold subject to the petitioners depositing the amount demanded vide letter dated 16th November, 2017, it is apparent that the petitioners are at liberty to deposit the demanded amount and get their property converted from leasehold to freehold.

In view of the aforesaid development, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, on instructions seeks liberty to withdraw the present petition with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings challenging the aforesaid demand letter dated 16th November, 2017 and 13th April, 2018.

Needless to say that since the Court has not examined the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioners, it will be open for the petitioners to raise all grounds including the grounds taken in the present petition.

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

MAY 09, 2018/aa REKHA PALLI, J