Shri Jagdish Khandewal & Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr.
2001 Latest Caselaw 207 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain. J.

1. Rule.

2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage. Aggrieved by the impugned demand on account of fifty per cent unearned increase, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. The impugned demand has been raised as a condition precedent. The impugned demand has been raised as a condition precedent for recording change of ownership of property No.40, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar III in favor of the petitioners.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that this property was owned by Smt. Prakash Vij and said Prakash Vij executed a will dated 14.12.92 in respect of each of the petitioners thereby bequeathing 1/3rd interest and rights in respect of the petitioners. The petitioners being beneficiaries under the said will filed a petition for grant of Letters of Administration under Indian Succession Act and on 1.5.96 the District Judge, Delhi granted Letters of Administration under Section 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act. It seems that later on some applications were filed by the petitioners for separate Letters of Administration and the Distt. Judge granted separate Letters of Administration for each of the petitioners in respect of their respective wills. After obtaining the Letters of Administration, the petitioners represented to the respondent to record their names in the register of the respondent, however, same was not done by the respondent and finally the impugned communication dated 28.1.2000 (Ann.P-1) was clamped by the respondent on the petitioners.

4. It has been contended before me by learned counsel for the respondent that the property was purchased by Smt. Prakash Viz from Amolak Ram, therefore, Prakash Viz was not recorded owner in record of the respondent.

5. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

6. This Court in Mrs. Vijaya Gursahaney vs. DDA & Ors. 1994 Rajdhani Law Reporter (DB) 367 has held:-

It is not disputed, and nay it could be disputed, that under the will executed by Ram Dhan, the original lessee, he bequeathed all his rights in the plot in favor of the petitioner. It should be immaterial, as far as respondents are concerned, as to what considerations, prevailed upon Ram Dhan to bequeath his plot to the petitioner. For the respondents to allege that will was not executed by the testator out of any love or affection for the petitioner, is of no relevance. The petitioner obtained Letters of Administration as per the procedure prescribed under Succession Act, 1925. The Letters of Adm. in the form prescribed u/S 290 of the said Act were granted on 7.5.79 of the District Judge, Delhi.

The Court further held that:-

We must record our deep anguish at the harassment caused to the petitioner all these 15 years. The correspondence with the DDA forms part of as many as three volumes in its record, which was shown to us at the time of hearing. It is unfortunate that so much paper work has gone into without any benefit to the petitioner. The DDA has been constituted to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan and for that purpose various powers have been conferred upon it. It is, thus, constituted for the benefit of the people. When it is allotting a plot or transferring the leasehold rights in plot in favor of other person, it is not showing any favor or giving any dole, or conferring any special benefit on them. Rather, its instrumentalities should act with a feeling that they are serving the people and they should not by their actions or otherwise thwart the rights of the people which they have under the law. In the circumstances of this case we award Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the petitioner.

7. In the instant case, moreover, the respondent in their counter affidavit which has been filed has taken the stand on the interpretation of Clause (c) of Lease Deed of the following effect:-

'As per the aforesaid Clause of the Lease Deed the lessee is entitled to claim and to recover 50% of the unearned increment in the value of t he land in the event of any second and subsequent transfer of the land.'

8. In the present case even if the property was allotted to the first lessee namely to Amolak Ram that property has come in the hands of Smt. Prakash Viz and Smt. Prakash Viz having executed a will no second transfer has come into existence. On the basis of will made by Smt. Prakash Viz in terms of the ratio of the judgment in Mrs. Vijaya Gursahaney Vs. DDA & Ors (supra), will not make a case so as to alow the respondent to claim unearned increase in the 50% of the value of the land. In any event of the matter that will also be not covered under second transfer in terms of lease deed. I therefore, quash the demand of unearned increase as contained in annexure P-1 at page 24 of the paper book. However, the petitioner will have to pay the ground rent at nominal rate in terms of the aforesaid letter of the respondent communicated to the petitioner. Consequently, nominal ground rent may be charged from the petitioner.

9. Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute.