1994 (5) TMI 291 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the demand for 50% unearned increase by the DDA.
2. The validity of the Will executed by the original lessee.
3. The requirement for mutation of the plot in favor of the petitioner.
4. The procedural correctness of the DDA's actions and communications.
5. The entitlement of the petitioner to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the demand for 50% unearned increase by the DDA:
The petitioner challenged the demand by the DDA for 50% unearned increase in the value of the land for the transfer of leasehold rights. The DDA justified this demand based on the terms of the perpetual lease deed, specifically sub-clauses 4, 5, and 8 of clause II, which allow the Lesser to claim a portion of the unearned increase in the value of the plot upon transfer. However, the court found that the relevant clauses do not entitle the DDA to charge any unearned increase from the legatee when the lessee has bequeathed the property through a Will. The court held that the DDA's decision to demand unearned increase and interest was not legal and set aside the communications dated 19 June 1992 and 17 September 1992.

2. The validity of the Will executed by the original lessee:
Ram Dhan, the original lessee, executed a Will bequeathing the leasehold rights to the petitioner. The petitioner obtained Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed, which was granted by the District Judge, Delhi, on 7 May 1980. The court noted that the Will's legitimacy was established through the proper procedure under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court emphasized that the DDA is not authorized to start parallel proceedings to verify the genuineness of the Will once Letters of Administration have been granted, as this is a judgment in rem and conclusive proof of the Will's existence and genuineness.

3. The requirement for mutation of the plot in favor of the petitioner:
The petitioner sought the transfer of the leasehold rights and necessary mutation in the DDA's records. The court directed the DDA to transfer the leasehold rights and mutate the plot in the petitioner's name based on the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. The court clarified that there is no requirement in the lease deed for the legatee to pay any charges towards unearned increase in the cost of the land.

4. The procedural correctness of the DDA's actions and communications:
The DDA's actions, including the demand for unearned increase and the threat of cancellation of the plot's allotment, were challenged. The court found that the DDA's communications and demands were not valid in law. The court criticized the DDA for causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner over 15 years, noting the extensive and unproductive correspondence that ensued.

5. The entitlement of the petitioner to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The DDA argued that the petitioner had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution due to alleged violations of the lease deed terms. However, the court found this argument unpersuasive and granted relief to the petitioner. The court issued a direction to the DDA to transfer the leasehold rights and mutate the plot in the petitioner's name without requiring payment of the unearned increase.

Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the DDA's demands and communications regarding the unearned increase. The court directed the DDA to transfer and mutate the leasehold rights in the petitioner's name based on the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. The court expressed its anguish over the prolonged harassment faced by the petitioner and awarded Rs.5,000.00 as costs to the petitioner. The rule was made absolute.