DDA must process 1,373 pending leasehold-to-freehold applications under the policy in force when payments were made, Delhi HC says

The proceedings concerned the DDA’s online portal for conversion of immovable properties from leasehold to freehold. The portal had been taken down in February 2026, resulting in all pending conversion applications being kept on hold.

Pursuant to the Court’s earlier direction, MoHUA, DDA, L&DO and other authorities held a meeting on 14 August 2026 to consider simplification of documentation and procedure and revision of conversion charges.

The minutes recorded that the existing documentation was duplicative, the conversion process required rationalisation, and the conversion-charge structure required comprehensive review; however, no final policy had been formulated.

The Court was informed that 1,373 applications were pending and that DDA had already collected approximately ₹155.06 crores in conversion charges in those cases.

The authorities sought time until 31 December 2026 to finalise a revised policy.

The property owners relied on Neera Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority , where the Court held that revised charges could not be imposed on an applicant who had applied and deposited the applicable charges before the rates were revised.

Whether applications for leasehold-to-freehold conversion that were pending and for which conversion charges had already been paid should be processed under the policy and rates prevailing when the applications were made.

Whether a revised policy concerning conversion documentation, procedure and charges could retrospectively govern pending applications.

Whether the delay by MoHUA, DDA and L&DO in finalising the conversion policy justified granting further time, and what directions were necessary to protect affected property owners.

The Court applied the principle that a policy governing conversion charges ordinarily operates prospectively and cannot retrospectively prejudice applicants whose applications were made, and applicable charges deposited, under the earlier policy.

Relying on Neera Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority , W.P.(C) 5180/2012, the Court held that where an applicant deposits the prescribed charges with the application, the authority cannot subsequently demand enhanced charges merely because processing is delayed and rates are revised in the meantime; the charges applicable on the date of application remain relevant, particularly when the authority has retained and utilised the applicant’s money.

The Court also applied the public-law principle that administrative authorities cannot indefinitely keep citizens’ applications and payments in abeyance without a clear and final policy framework.

The Court found that the authorities’ meeting minutes demonstrated only an agreement to review the documentation, procedure and conversion charges, rather than any concluded policy.

Since the revised policy would ordinarily be prospective, applying it to applications already filed and paid for could unfairly subject applicants to later, potentially higher charges.

This conclusion was reinforced by Neera Sharma , which treated the date of application and payment as determinative where delay was attributable to the authority.

The Court therefore protected the pending paid applications from retrospective application of any future policy.

It also held that the continued suspension of the portal and the absence of clarity regarding transfers, gifts, inheritance and mortgages were unacceptable because scores of citizens were being prevented from dealing with their properties.

The Court declined to grant an open-ended extension and granted MoHUA, DDA and L&DO a final opportunity to place their complete policy on record at least three days before the next hearing.

The matter was listed for 28 September 2026 at 2:30 p.m.; the proceedings were treated as part-heard, and the Secretary, Department of Capital Development, MoHUA, and the Vice Chairman, DDA, were directed to join the next hearing.