The Delhi High Court took strong exception to the delay by the Delhi and Central governments in deciding long-pending leasehold-to-freehold property conversion applications, warning that “scores of citizens cannot be made to wait” while the DDA’s conversion portal stays frozen.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on the inaction of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) and the Land and Development Office (L&DO) in deciding a large backlog of applications seeking conversion of properties from leasehold to freehold, observing that “scores of citizens cannot be made to wait for conversion of their properties from leasehold to freehold in this manner,” and granting the authorities a “last and final opportunity” to place a comprehensive policy on record [Delhi Development Authority v. Mala Sahni Seth and Another and connected matters].
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan, in an order passed on September 7, 2026, recorded its dissatisfaction with the pace at which the authorities had moved, noting that despite an earlier order spelling out the difficulties caused by the non-processing of conversion applications, “no substantive decision” had been taken by the MoHUA, DDA or L&DO.
The frozen portal and the stalled applications
At the heart of the matter is the DDA’s online portal for converting immovable properties from leasehold to freehold, which the Court recorded had been taken down since February 2026 leaving all applications in limbo. The grievance was brought before the Court by property owners at the DLF South Court Mall in Saket, who had applied to the DDA in 2023 for conversion of their properties, paid the conversion charges the DDA demanded, but found that the transfer was never effected even as, on their case, the DDA levied GST on them retrospectively.
The proceedings have a considerable procedural history. On December 5, 2025, the High Court directed the DDA to process the applications on an undertaking by the property owners that they would honour the GST demand if they ultimately failed in the petition. When that direction was not complied with, the owners returned to Court, and by orders of February 11 and March 18, 2026, the DDA was again directed to process the applications. It was those directions that the DDA came to challenge, even as the underlying problem a frozen portal and a mounting backlog remained unresolved.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Slams Govt & DDA Over Delay in Flats for Judges: “Don’t Test Our Patience!”
A meeting that decided nothing
On July 30, 2026, the Court had directed the Central and Delhi governments to urgently convene a meeting to formulate a plan for processing the pending applications so that the portal could be restarted. The minutes of the resulting meeting, held on August 14 and attended by senior officers of the MoHUA, DDA, L&DO and the Department of Revenue, were placed on record. But on examining them, the Court found that they revealed no concrete outcome.
The minutes, the Court noted, showed only that the participants had “deliberated at length” on simplifying the documentation, rationalising the conversion process, and revisiting the conversion charges while deferring every substantive decision. On the charges, the meeting recorded that the rates “were fixed a considerable time ago and have not been revised since then” and that the matter “requires a holistic examination… rather than a piecemeal decision,” and sought time until December 31, 2026 to examine all aspects. The Bench was unimpressed, observing:
“Despite sufficient time having elapsed, there is no positive outcome that the Court has seen even today.”
The Court was pointed about the practical failure the minutes exposed. Although the meeting had recorded that there was no restraint on leaseholders transferring, gifting, inheriting or mortgaging their properties as per the established procedure, none of the counsel appearing for the authorities was able to apprise the Court of the actual mechanism by which such transfers of leasehold property could be effected while the portal remained down. The matter, the Court noted, had simply been “sent back to the DDA and the L&DO for giving their recommendations.”
New policy must be prospective; paid-up applications to be processed on old rates
A significant part of the order concerns the fate of applications where charges have already been paid. The Court put a direct query to counsel for the DDA and MoHUA on whether any new conversion policy could apply retrospectively, and recorded the answer that a policy of this nature “has to be prospective in nature, though there may be some exceptions.”
Relying on the Single Judge decision in Neera Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority, the Court reiterated the settled principle that the charges applicable to a conversion are those prevalent on the date of filing the application particularly where the applicant has already deposited the charges along with the application. On that footing, the Bench held that any policy announced now would have to be prospective, and that for the large number of pending applications where conversion charges had already been collected, those applications “would have to be processed as per the policy prevalent at the relevant point in time.” The protection is a meaningful one for applicants who have already paid: they cannot be made to bear a later, revised rate for the delay in processing that was not of their making.
The scale of the pendency underscores the stakes. As captured in an earlier order, the Court had been informed that 1,373 applications were pending, in respect of which the DDA had already collected around Rs. 155.06 crore.
ALSO READ: Batla House Demolition Row: Delhi HC Reserves Order on Petitions Against DDA’s Notices
‘Citizens cannot be made to wait’
Expressing its dissatisfaction in unambiguous terms, the Court recorded that it was “clearly not satisfied with the progress made since the previous order” and equally dissatisfied with the minutes, which, it said, “actually reveal that there is no clarity on any policy whatsoever neither on documentation nor on the conversion charges.” It was in that context that the Bench made the observation now at the centre of the order:
“Scores of citizens cannot be made to wait for conversion of their properties from leasehold to freehold in this manner.”
Accordingly, the Court granted the MoHUA, the DDA and the L&DO a “last and final opportunity” to place their final policy on record at least three days before the next date of hearing, directing that the matter be treated as part-heard and requiring the Secretary, Department of Capital Development, MoHUA and the Vice Chairman, DDA to join the proceedings on the next date. The matter is listed for September 28, 2026.
Why the order matters
Beyond the immediate dispute, the order is a notable instance of a constitutional court policing administrative drift that directly burdens ordinary citizens. The right to hold and deal with property is not a fundamental right, but the arbitrary or unexplained withholding of a service the State has undertaken to provide here, the processing of conversion applications for which charges have already been collected engages the guarantee against arbitrary State action under Article 14. By insisting that a new policy operate prospectively and that already-paid applications be decided on the rates prevailing when they were filed, the Court has protected applicants from being penalised for the administration’s own delay, applying a principle of fairness that runs through its earlier decisions on conversion and change-of-land-use charges.
The order also illustrates the limits of judicial patience with inter-departmental buck-passing. Faced with minutes that recorded extensive “deliberation” but no decision, and counsel unable to explain even the existing transfer mechanism, the Court declined to accept process as a substitute for outcome framing the question not as one of policy convenience for the authorities but of hardship to the “scores of citizens” whose property rights remain frozen. Whether the “last and final opportunity” produces the comprehensive policy the Court has demanded, or another round of deferral, is what the September 28 hearing will reveal.
Case Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Mala Sahni Seth and Another [CONT.APP.(C) 15/2026] and connected matters
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan
Citation: 2026:DHC:7651-DB
Date of Order: September 7, 2026