MANJU MADAN Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition seeks quashing of the order dated 29th April, 2009 of the respondent New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) intimating to the petitioners that their request for mutation of property No.33, Khan Market, New Delhi in their name will be considered only upon payment of the dues claimed to be due with respect to the property. The petition also seeks a direction to the respondent NDMC to mutate the said property in the name of the petitioners.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the Perpetual Lease of the land underneath the property No.33, Khan Market, New Delhi and the Certificate of Sale of superstructure thereon was first executed in favour of Raja Gian Nath in the year 1957; that upon demise of Raja Gian Nath, the property devolved upon his grandson Sh. N.N. Madan and Sh. Rohit Madan; Sh. N.N. Madan was the husband of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioner No.2 and Sh. Rohit Madan is the son of petitioner No.1 & brother of petitioner No.2; the Perpetual Lease of the land mutated in the names of Sh. N.N. Madan & Sh. Rohit Madan and Supplementary Lease Deed dated 13th December, 1974 also executed in their favour; that Sh. N.N. Madan expired on 11th April, 2005 and whereupon his share in the property devolved upon the two petitioners and Sh. Rohit Madan aforesaid; that though the respondent NDMC had mutated the property for the purpose of House Tax in favour of the petitioners but has not mutated the perpetual lease hold rights in the land underneath the property in the name of the petitioners. On the contrary, the respondent NDMC vide communication dated 29th April, 2009 impugned in this petition communicated to the petitioners that there are violations of the Perpetual Lease conditions and a sum of approximately Rs.35,00,000/ - was due therefor. The petitioners were thus informed that their request for mutation / substitution will be considered only upon payment of the said government dues. Contending the said communication to be against the Policy framed by the respondent NDMC itself, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) THOUGH the counsel for the respondent NDMC has sought to argue that the NDMC can recover the dues only by insisting upon payment as condition for mutation / substitution but the said argument is contrary to the Policy aforesaid of the respondent NDMC. The respondent NDMC upon receipt of a request for substitution is only required to calculate the dues and to issue a demand letter therefor simultaneously with the substitution letter and to make a reference in this regard in the substitution letter. The Policy does not allow the respondent NDMC to insist upon the payment thereof as a condition for substitution as is being done and argued in the present case.