DDA moves SC over commercial land dispute
The Supreme Court on Friday admitted the petition of Delhi Development Authority challenging the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had declined to give its commercial land back to it from one SGG Towers.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday admitted
the petition of Delhi Development Authority challenging the
order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had declined
to give its commercial land back to it from one SGG Towers.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia admitted the
plea of the DDA and asked SGG Tower to show the documents
claiming the city developer`s land at industrial area in
The bench asked SGG to submit the documents showing its
claim that it has received lease rights of the land from one
company Pure Drink, which has been now been liquidated.
It also stayed the order of the High Court which had said
that the transfer of the land from Pure Drinks to SGG Towers
was right and DDA can not claim fresh lease amount. However,
it had held that DDA was still the owner of the land on which
CTC Malls exits in that area.
"SGG is directed to file additional documents, including
the Deed of Assessment from the original assignee to Pure
Drinks as also the terms and conditions on which auction sale
took place in favour of SGG as well as the proclamation of
sale," the bench said giving them four weeks time.
According to DDA, the land was leased to one Mehta
Construction in 1957 by the Delhi Improvement Trust, a body to
regulate the civic affairs of the city prior to establishment
However, Mehta Construction was liquidated and the lease
was transfered to Pure Drink. This firm also was liquidated
due to losses and, in a sale, the high court transferred it to
Later, SGG approached DDA for mutation of the land. DDA
refused, and approached the High Court claiming the land back
and asking for a fresh lease. DDA claimed that lease cannot be
transfered further as it was a lease hold property not a free
However, the High Court held that the land belonged to
DDA but it can not cancel the lease and it was challenged in
the apex court by the city developer today.