Lease:
Lease-hold property – Conversion to free-hold property under a policy – Conversion charges – Computation of – Relevant date – Whether would be the date when the applicant applied for conversion or the date when the final decision was taken – Held: Submission of an application does not confer a vested right of permission – The application for conversion must necessarily be consistent with and compliant to the governing provisions of the conversion policy – Without affecting the compliance, applicant did not have right to claim conversion of the land to free-hold – High Court was wrong in directing that rate for computation of conversion charges would be that which was prevalent on the date when application was made.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The submission of an application does not confer vested right for permission. The applicant must comply with the terms of the policy. One of the terms in the policy in question was that the applicant should not have encroached on government land. An applicant who seeks the benefit of the policy must comply with its terms. In the present case, the policy which was formulated by the State Government specifically contained a stipulation to the effect that a lessee, who had encroached upon or unauthorisedly occupied Government land anywhere within Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation limits would not be eligible to be covered by the scheme unless the unauthorised occupation is vacated. [Para 17][220-F-G]
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority v. Prestige Estates Project Ltd. (2019) SCC OnLine SC 931; State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone (1981) 2 SCC
205 : [1981] 2 SCR 742; Howrah Municipal
Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 663 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1212 – relied on.
2. There was no justification for the High Court to direct that the rate for the computation of conversion charges should be that which was applicable on the submission of an application. The application for conversion from leasehold to freehold must necessarily be consistent with and compliant to the governing provisions of the policy which has been framed by the State Government. Unless compliance is effected, there is no right to claim conversion of the land to freehold. The respondent would necessarily have to pay the conversion charges on the date when a final decision was taken after due verification that there was no encroachment and after scrutinizing the declaration which was filed by the respondent. [Para 19][221-F-H; 222-A]
3. A period of nearly twelve years has elapsed in the meantime. The respondent moved the writ proceedings before the High court only in 2015. If the grievance of the respondent was that the State had not taken any action on his representations, he ought to have moved the writ proceedings at an earlier point of time seeking a decision on his application. Having himself waited until 2015 to seek a declaration from the High Court, the respondent cannot claim that the conversion charges should be fixed as on the date of the application. [Para 20][222-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.