Sanjiv Gupta vs The Registrar Of Cooperative Societies And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~12 and 39-41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 7 September, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 9 September, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010272212026
+ CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & CM APPL. 40235/2026
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
for DDA with Ms. Gauri Rajput, Advs.
versus
MALA SAHNI SETH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Umar
Hashmi & Mr. Ayush Kumar Advs.
UOI / MOHUA /L&DO
Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. Sukrit Seth, Ms.
Neelampreet Kaur, Mr. Abhiroop
Rathore, Mr. Kabir Dev and Mr
Sukhvir Singh, Advs. for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Rajveer Pandey, Government
Counsel (GP) for Respondent/Union
of India.
WITH
39
# CNR No. DLHC010398742025
+ W.P.(C) 9034/2025 & CM APPL. 59809/2026, CM APPL.
60136/2026
KANTA RANI .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Umar
Hashmi & Mr. Ayush Kumar Advs.
UOI / MOHUA /L&DO
Mr. Rajveer Pandey Government
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 9
Counsel (GP) for Respondent Union
of India (MoHUA)
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC
for Union of India
Mr. C.M. Rao, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel
for DDA, Ms. Gauri Rajput, Adv.
WITH
40
# CNR No. DLHC010888302025
+ W.P.(C) 17229/2025
MEENAKSHI AUPLISH .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Umar
Hashmi & Mr. Ayush Kumar Advs.
UOI / MOHUA /L&DO
Mr. Rajveer Pandey Government
Counsel (GP) for Respondent Union
of India (MoHUA)
Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for RCS
AND
41
# CNR No. DLHC010071932026
+ W.P.(C) 2651/2026
SANJIV GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through:
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for RCS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 9
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. In these petitions, the issue relating to the DDA’s portal for conversion
of immoveable properties from lease hold to free hold is being considered.
The said portal has been taken down since February 2026 – leading to a
situation wherein all applications have been kept on hold.
3. On the last date i.e., 30th July, 2026, the Court had directed for a
meeting to take place between the Secretary, Department of Capital
Development, MoHUA and DDA, as also any other Ministries as may be
necessary.
th
4. The minutes of the meeting dated 14 August, 2026 have been placed
on record. The said meeting is stated to have been attended by the following
persons:
List of Participants :
From Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA)
1 . M . D. Thara, Secretary, Department of Capital Development – On
Chair
2 . Shri Manjesh Porwal, Deputy Secretary (DD-II)
3 . Shri Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, Deputy Secretary (DD-I)
4. Shri Vinay Kumar, Under Secretary (DD-V)
From Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
1 . Shri N. Sarvana Kumar, Vice Chairman, DDA
2. Shri Ravi Shankar, Pr. Commissioner (LD)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 9
3 . Dr. Mannan Akhtar, Commissioner (LD)
4. Shri Abhishek Anand, CAO
5. Shri Sahil Garg, Director (LC)
6. Shri A. K. Jaini, Dy. CAO (LC)
From Land and Development Office (L&DO)
1 . Shri Shyam Lal Poonia, L&DO
2. Shri Ankur Kumar Lal, Dy. L&DO
From Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance
1 . Shri Hemraj Meeua, Under Secretary
5. A perusal of the said minutes would show that despite the previous
st
order dated 31 July, 2026 spelling out the difficulties which are being faced
due to non-processing of conversion applications from leasehold to freehold,
no substantive decision has been taken by the MoHUA, DDA or L&DO. The
relevant extract of the Minutes reads as under:
“4 . Discussion on Simplification of Documentation : It
was deliberated at length on simplification of the
documentation required from applicants at the time of
freehold conversion. It was noted that:
• A number of documents presently prescribed are
duplicative in nature and required information already
available with DDA/other agencies through other
documents submitted in the same application.
• Certain documents have lost synchronisation and are
no longer relevant to the conversion process in their
present form.
• A number of particulars can now be verified and
authenticated through online mode, obviating the need
for physical submission of the corresponding
documents.
5. It was agreed to and decided that the list of documents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 9
ought to be reviewed and pruned so as to remove
duplication and online verification be adopted wherever
feasible.
6. Discussion on Simplification of the Conversion
Process: It was also discussed to rationalize and
simplify the conversion process by reducing the number
of procedural steps involved so as to make the process
more citizen-friendly, reduce processing time, and
minimise the compliance burden in terms of both
procedure and documents placed on applicants.
7. Discussion on Conversion Charges: On the issue of
conversion charges, it was discussed that the rates
presently applicable were fixed a considerable time ago
and have not been revised since then. After discussion,
the following were brought out:
• The rate structure for conversion charges requires
revisiting in light of the substantial period that has
elapsed since the last revision.
• Any revision must have due regard to the quantum of
public money/government revenue involved, while also
being fair and equitable to applicants.
• This matter requires a holistic examination,
encompassing both the quantum of charges and the
procedure for their determination and collection rather
than a piecemeal decision.
8. It was also discussed that although, conversion policy
of DDA has presently been kept to on hold and under
review to rationalise and simplify it, this does not
restrain to leaseholder to transfer, gift, inheritance,
mortgage their properties as per the established
procedure. The lessee of these properties can apply to
DDA for transferring their properties.
9. After the discussion and having regard to the above
points, it was decided that given the range of issues
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 9
involved namely, simplification of documentation,
simplification of process, and a comprehensive revisit of
the conversion charges structure, a time till 31.12.2026
be sought from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to
enable DDA, MoHUA and other concerned authorities
to examine all aspects of the matter holistically and to
arrive at a complete and considered decision.
10. It was further decided that DDA, in consultation
with L&DO and other concerned agencies, shall work
towards finalising the revised list of documents, the
simplified process, and its recommendations on
conversion charges within the said period.”
6. At the outset, the Court has put a query to the ld. Counsel appearing for
the DDA and the ld. Counsel appearing for the MoHUA as to whether any
policy which would now be announced for conversion can apply
retrospectively, the answer is that usually a policy of this nature, has to be
prospective in nature, though there may be some exceptions to this.
7. Ld. Counsel for the property owners have placed reliance on a decision
of the ld. Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 5180/2012 titled Neera
Sharma vs. Delhi Development Authority , wherein the Petitioner had applied
with DDA for change of land use and had deposited appropriate conversion
charges. The Petitioner therein was aggrieved by the CLU charges levied as
per the rates that were revised after filing of the application. In this regard, the
ld. Single Judge held as under:
“7. In my view, if the application in the case of the
petitioner was submitted at the same time when the
application in the case of other persons with whom
parity is being claimed by her were submitted, it was not
open to DDA to charge a higher rate from the petitioner
while charging lower rates from those persons, in whose
cases, an order dated 21.5.2008 was passed by this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 9
Court in W.P(C) No.2365/2007.
8. Had the petitioner not deposited the charges along
with the application, DDA could probably have some
justification for charging higher rates from her. But,
when the petitioner deposited more than the amount
ultimately found payable by her towards CLU charges
and the DDA utilized the money of the petitioner for
about three years before granting permission for change
of land use, it is not open to the agency to charge higher
rates from her on the ground that there has been
revision in the rates between the date of the application
and the date on which the permission was ultimately
granted. The respondent-DDA has not brought to my
notice any such rules or regulations which provides
that the CLU charges at the rates prevalent on the date
of grant of permission would apply . In any case, there
can hardly be any justification for such a stipulation
when the charges are already deposited along with the
application . In fact, it is only the applicant and not
DDA who suffers on account of delay in processing the
application since, her money is utilized by DDA
whereas she is not able to use the land in respect of
which change of land use is sought. In these
circumstances, there is neither any legal basis nor any
justification on facts, for DDA charging from the
petitioner, the conversion charges as prevalent in the
year 2009-2010 . Therefore, DDA is required to refund
the balance amount which becomes payable to the
petitioner after calculating CLU charges @ Rs.750/-
per sq. meters.”
A perusal of the above decision shows clearly that the applicable charges for
conversion of land use would be as per the rates prevalent on the date of filing
of the application, especially, where the applicant had already deposited the
applicable charges along with the said application.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 9
8. In the opinion of the Court, and considering the submissions as also the
decision cited above, any policy which would be now announced would have
to be prospective in nature. It is the admitted position that there are a large
number of applications for which conversion charges have already been
collected by the DDA. Such applications are also not being processed due to
pulling down of the Portal.
st
9. As captured in the previous order dated 31 July, 2026 in paragraph 18,
the Court was informed that there were 1373 applications which were pending
wherein Rs.155.06 crores has already been collected by the DDA.
10. It is made clear that in respect of all the past applications which are
pending for which payments have been received, the same would have to be
processed as per the policy prevalent at the relevant point in time.
11. Ld. Counsels appearing for the Government, however, pray that a
comprehensive policy be permitted to be placed on record so that the matter
is not dealt with in a piecemeal manner.
12. It is for this purpose that the Court had granted time on the last date of
hearing. Despite sufficient time having elapsed, there is no positive outcome
that the Court has seen even today. For example in paragraph 8 of the minutes
of meeting extracted above, it records that there is no restraint on leaseholders
transferring, gifting, inheriting and mortgaging their properties as per
established procedure. In respect of the process of transfer of leasehold
properties, none of the ld. Counsels are able to apprise the Court as to the
mechanism for doing the same.
13. The further conclusion in the Minutes also shows that from the
MoHUA, the matter has been sent back to the DDA and the L&DO for giving
their recommendations.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 9
14. Ms. D. Thara from MoHUA has not joined, however, Mr. N. Sarvana,
Vice Chairman, DDA has joined the proceedings and submits that the DDA
and L&DO are engaged in active consultation for giving their
recommendations and the same would be done within the next two weeks.
15. The Court is clearly not satisfied with the progress made since the
previous order and is also not satisfied with the Minutes which have been
placed on record. In fact, the Minutes actually reveal that there is no clarity
on any policy whatsoever neither on documentation nor on the conversion
charges.
16. Scores of citizens cannot be made to wait for conversion of their
properties from leasehold to freehold in this manner.
17. Last and final opportunity is granted to the MoHUA, DDA and L&DO
to place their final policy on record at least three days before the next date of
hearing.
th
18. List on 28 September, 2026 at 2:30 p.m.
19. This shall be treated as part-heard matter.
20. Ms. D Thara and Mr. N. Sarvana Kumar shall join the proceedings on
the next date of hearing.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 7, 2026
Rahul/msh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:27:55
CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 9