CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi vs Santosh Jain

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 2 September 2011 · Citation: 2011 0 NCDRC 734

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anupam Dasgupta J.
RESULT
petitions is dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 391 words
1.

THIS review application has been filed against the order dated 18.03.2011 by which revision petition no. 570 of 2010 filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, "the State Commission") was allowed and the orders of the State Commission as well as the District Forum were set aside, with further direction that the DDA would execute the necessary document of conversion of the tenure of the shop in question in favour of the complainant within four weeks of payment of the amount as demanded by the DDA.

2.

I have heard Mr. Sunil K. Ojha, Advocate on behalf of the applicant/complainant and Mrs. Girija Wadhwa, Advocate on behalf of the DDA. The only point repeatedly made by Mr. Ojha was that the area of the shop for which the DDA demanded fee for conversion from lease-hold tenure to free-hold tenure was more than the actual covered area of the shop. In support of this contention, Mr. Ojha referred to the letter dated 31.07.2006 written by the Director (PLG), DDA, Rohini to the authorised representative of the complainant specifically confirming that the "area" of the shop meant the "covered area" of the shop. According to him, the covered area of the shop is 8.61 sq.mtr as against 17.31 sq.mtr for which the DDA charged the complainant. He also sought to raise the point that construction of the shop such was that it could not have had a "mezzanine floor" the term being defined under the Building By-laws.

On the other hand, Mr. Wadhwa drew attention to the document titled, "The Scheme of Conversion from Lease Hold System to Land Tenure into Free hold". Page 10 of the Annexure ?A? attached to the said document shows that the conversion fee in the case of DDA?s built-up shops would be 1.2 x "The shop area as indicated in the allotment-cum-demand letter". The demand notice dated 23.12.1987 issued by the DDA in respect of the shop in question clearly showed the area/size of the shop as 17.31 sq. mtr for which the DDA had charged the conversion fee from the complainant/ respondent. On careful perusal of the documents already on record, the point made by Mrs. Wadhwa is found to be valid.

3.

AS a result, the review application is dismissed.