Supreme Court overturns decision, rules against property conversion.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and allowed the appeal, ruling that the respondent was not entitled to convert the property to freehold as he did not meet the requirements of Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme. The court directed the DDA to refund the money deposited by the respondent with interest, emphasizing that the decree for specific performance was collusive and did not confer a legitimate right for conversion.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the respondent to be considered as a Power of Attorney holder.
2. Validity of the civil suit for specific performance.
3. Compliance with Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme.
4. Legitimacy of the conversion application and the respondent's right to apply for conversion.
5. Impact of the Suraj Lamp & Industries judgments on the case.

Detailed Analysis:

Entitlement of the respondent to be considered as a Power of Attorney holder:
The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi held that the respondent is entitled to be taken as a Power of Attorney holder and therefore entitled to get the suit property converted from leasehold to freehold. The respondent argued that he complied with the conditions of the Conversion Scheme and had deposited the necessary conversion charges with the DDA. However, the DDA contended that the respondent did not satisfy the terms of Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme as he was neither a power of attorney holder nor a holder of a sale deed in respect of the suit property.

Validity of the civil suit for specific performance:
The civil suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent and his father against Jan Talwar and Raymen Kukreja. The suit was decreed based on a compromise, with the court holding the transaction valid. However, the Supreme Court noted that the suit was collusive, aimed at evading stamp duty and registration charges. The court emphasized that the suit was filed by individuals who were not parties to the original agreement to sell, and the decree was based on a compromise among family members, which did not confer a legitimate right to the respondent for conversion.

Compliance with Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme:
Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme mandates that a conversion application should be filed by a person holding a power of attorney from the lessee/sub-lessee/allottee. The Supreme Court found that the respondent did not fulfill this requirement as he was neither a power of attorney holder nor a holder of an agreement to sell. The High Court's direction for conversion was primarily based on the decree for specific performance, which the Supreme Court deemed collusive.

Legitimacy of the conversion application and the respondent's right to apply for conversion:
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's application for conversion was invalid as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme. The respondent's possession of the suit property and the decree for specific performance did not entitle him to apply for conversion. The court also noted that the respondent had not followed up on the conversion application within a reasonable time, further questioning the legitimacy of his claim.

Impact of the Suraj Lamp & Industries judgments on the case:
The Supreme Court referenced the judgments in Suraj Lamp & Industries cases, which held that transactions involving General Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement, and Will do not convey any title or create any interest in immovable property. The court reiterated that such transactions are not valid modes of transfer and cannot be recognized as deeds of title. The respondent's reliance on the decree for specific performance did not place him at a higher footing than a holder of a power of attorney, as the decree itself was found to be collusive.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allowed the appeal. The respondent was not entitled to apply for conversion of the property as he did not meet the requirements of Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme. The court directed the DDA to return the money deposited by the respondent with 10% interest, if an application for the return of money is made.

---