Tarun Khosla & Another vs Union Of India
2009 Latest Caselaw 2069 Del

29
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 5703/2006

      TARUN KHOSLA & ANR              ..... Petitioners
                    Through Mr.S.K.Rungta, Ms.Pratiti Rungta,
                    advocates.

                  versus

      UOI                       ..... Respondent
                         Through Mr.Gaurav Duggal, advocate.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                ORDER

% 15.05.2009

1. By Sale Deed dated 29th September, 1999, the petitioners

became owners of the leasehold rights in the property bearing no.

3/9A, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to

as the property, for short). Their request for mutation of the property

has been rejected by the lessor-Land & Building Department Office

(L&DO) by letter dated 29th October, 2005 which is impugned in the

present writ petition.

2. L&DO is the lessor and had initially executed a Lease Deed

dated 13th February, 1985 in favour of Mr.Chaman Lal Talwar and

Mr.Madan Lal Khosla. Mr. Chaman Lal Talwar and Mr.Madan Lal

WPC NO.5703-04/2006 Page 1 Khosla "transferred" the said property to Mr.Amir Chand Khosla,

father of the petitioners, by executing a General Power of Attorney,

affidavit, Agreement to Sell, receipt, etc. It is not disputed that the

petitioner is in possession of the property since 1999 and that

petitioner's father, Mr.Amir Chand Khosla was in possession of the

property since 1985 till 1999. The factum that the Sale Deed dated

29th September, 1999 was executed in favour of the petitioners by his

father Mr.Amir Chand Khosla is not denied by the respondent-L&DO.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner and

before them, their father, Mr.Amir Chand Khosla have been paying

ground rent since 1985 and the original receipts are also available

with them. He further states that they have been paying house tax

since 1985 and the original receipts are with them and can be

verified by the L&DO from the Office of the MCD.

3. The Deputy Land & Development Officer by the impugned

letter dated 29th October, 2005 rejected the request of mutation on

the ground that the petitioners had not furnished the

documents/clarification demanded vide letter dated 14th July, 2003

and as reminded by letter dated 28th April, 2004. Letter dated 14th

July, 2003 required the petitioners to submit a registered General

Power of Attorney or certified copy of the registered General Power WPC NO.5703-04/2006 Page 2 of Attorney executed by the original lessees, namely Mr. Chaman Lal

Talwar and Mr.Madan Lal Khosla. It is the case of the petitioners that

the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of their father-

Mr.Amit Chand Khosla in 1985 is not registered, thus the petitioners

cannot furnish a registered General Power of Attorney or certified

copy thereof. Petitioners claim benefit under Section 53A of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as the fact that even after

lapse of 12 years, the original Lessees have not taken any steps or

legal proceedings to recover the property from the petitioner or their

predecessor in interest, Mr.Amir Chand Khosla.

4. The factum that the petitioners have registered sale deed in

their favour is not disputed. In these circumstances, I do not think

insistence of a registered General Power of Attorney is necessary or

required. A sale deed transfers the property. The said transaction is

complete. The sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioners

in 1999. They are legal owners of the property since then. Further

the petitioners or their predecessors claim to be in possession of the

property since 1985. Respondents can satisfy themselves on the

factum that the petitioners or their predecessors in interest, Mr. Amir

Chand Khosla have been in possession of the property since 1985

and examine the documents that will be submitted by the petitioners WPC NO.5703-04/2006 Page 3 in support thereof. Respondents are also at liberty to obtain

indemnity bond, etc. to ensure that they are not put to risk by claims

of third parties. It is not the case of the respondent L&DO that any

third party has raised any dispute or made a claim in respect of the

property.

5. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 29th October, 2005 is

quashed and set aside. Petitioners will appear before the respondents

with requisite documents on 11th June, 2009 at 3.00 p.m.

Respondents will examine the said documents and pass necessary

orders within two months from the said date.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners

will also apply for conversion of the leasehold rights into freehold. If

any such application is made, the same will be considered in

accordance with law. The petitioners are at liberty to ventilate their

grievance in case they are denied conversion.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. DASTI.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      MAY 15, 2009
      P




WPC NO.5703-04/2006                                               Page 4