9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ructed a residential building on the land. On May 20, 1938, Smt. Rama Bai assigned the lease in favour of Smt. Leelawati who died on November 6, 1969. The interest in the lease devolved on respondents 1-4 and one Hans Raj Gupta and their names were mutated in the record of rights as is evidenced by the Government Memo of November 21, 1977. Hans Raj Gupta died on July 31, 1985. Respondents 5-11 are his heirs and legal representatives. It appears that Hans Raj Gupta had left a will. It is the subject matter of probate proceedings in Suit No. 62 of 1985 which is being contested. If the will is probated then share of the late Hans Raj Gupta will devolve upon respondents 6-9; otherwise, it will devolve on all his heirs, viz., respondents 5-11. For the purpose of the questions to be answered in this appeal, we are not much concerned with the devolution of property after the death of late Hans Raj Gupta. 3. In September 1962, the Delhi Development Authority prepared a Master Plan for Delhi Under Section 7 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 4. Before the names of respondents 1-4 and the late Hans Raj Gupta were mutated in the property register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Commercial building. Please let me know your terms in respect thereof together with commercialisation charges that will have to be paid by us. The plans have already been submitted to the N.D.M.C. after their approval by the Urban Land Art Commissioner. Yours faithfully, S/-d Hans Raj Gupta for Hans Raj Gupta, Dev Raj Gupta and Others We have then on record a letter dated March 1, 1980 addressed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to the lessees as follows: To S/Shri Hans Raj Gupta, Dev Raj Gupta, Prem Raj Gupta Pardeep Kumar Gupta, C/o Shri Hans Raj Gupta, 3-Ratendon Road, New Delhi. Sub: Premises situated on Plot No. 5, Block No. 205 known as 20-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Dear Sir, I am to say that the applications in respect of the above mentioned premises received so far from different persons (some of them are not co-lessees) to intimate conversion charges for the construction of Multi-storeyed Commercial building and your intention to sell the property to M/s. Central Investment (P) Ltd. and the United Towers India (Pvt.) Ltd. but rejection of the same by the Competent authority under Urban (Ceiling Regulation) Act, 1976 have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processed. On January 12, 1984, the Government intimated to the parties that with reference to their letter of February 27, 1981 seeking permission for construction of multi-storeyed commercial building, the lessor, i.e., the Government was willing to consider their said request provided they were willing to comply with the terms and conditions mentioned therein full in advance. The terms and conditions mentioned in this communication included, among other things, the payment of additional premium of ₹ 1,77,31,548 in lumpsum and payment of interest on the additional premium at 10 per cent per annum from 27th May, 1981 to 14th July, 1983 being ₹ 37,84,349.55 and from 15th July, 1983 to the date of payment, at ₹ 1,47,762.90 per month. The other terms and conditions imposed by the said letter are not in dispute and, therefore, they need not be reproduced here. 6. On receipt of this letter, the late Hans Raj Gupta and other lessees made a representation on March 31, 1984 to the Works Housing Minister of the Government of India requesting reconsideration of the terms and conditions imposed in the Government's letter of permission of January 12, 1984. It appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1978 was not in accordance with law and the respondents were not obliged to make the payment pursuant to an invalid demand. The High Court, therefore, quashed the demand for conversion charges contained in the appellants letters dated January 12, 1984 and June 12, 1987 and directed the appellants to recompute the additional premium and other charges within a period of six months in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made by it. It is this decision which is challenged in this appeal. 8. While narrating the facts we have referred to the alleged application made by the respondents or on their behalf on April 25, 1977 and February 15, 1978. Since the respondents do not contend that their alleged application of April 25, 1977 was an application for conversion of the user of the land, it is not necessary for us to deal with the same. However, since it is contended vehemently on their behalf that the application of February 15, 1978 was a proper application for conversion of the user of the land and the High Court has also accepted it as such, it is necessary to deal with the same. The contents of the said application have been reproduced above. In the first in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February 15, 1978 was not an application made for the change of the user of the land. 9. It is for this very reason that we are of the view that it was for the first time on February 27, 1981 that a proper application was made for the purpose. As has been pointed out hereinabove, after the letter of February 15, 1978 addressed by the late Hans Raj Gupta and others to the authority, we have on record only the letter of March 1, 1980 addressed by the authority to Hans Raj Gupta and others pointing out that applications in respect of the land were received by him from different persons some of whom were not even co-lessees, to intimate conversion charges for the construction of multi-storeyed commercial building . The letter also referred to their intention to sell the property to M/s. Central Investment Private Limited and the United Towers India Private Limited . The authority also referred to the rejection of the same by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stated that the same had created some doubts about the ownership of the land. It was, therefore, necessary according to the authority that a fresh application for the permission to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the change of the user of the land was made by or on behalf of the respondent-lessees of the land. 10. There is no explanation given by the appellants as to why the application made by the respondents of February 27, 1981 was not replied to till January 12, 1984. Hence in the absence of anything else on records, it will have to be held that the date with reference to which conversion charges have to be counted is 27th February, 1981. The authority has calculated additional premium with reference to May 27, 1981 on the footing that the outer limit for granting permission was three months from the date of the receipt of the application. There is no justification for the authority to hold thus, for they are expected to process the application as early as possible and not to wait till the end of three months. Unless there are valid reasons for them to do so or the delay is caused on account of an omission or commission on the part of the applicants, it is not proper to take the end of the three months as the date with reference to which the conversion charges should be calculated. We are, however, informed that in the present case it makes no difference whether the charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
