RAMESH GROVER Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . With the consent of counsel for the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. Brief facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are that respondent as a lesser allotted an industrial plot bearing No.4, Block X, in the layout plan of Naraina Ware Housing Scheme, New Delhi, measuring about 400 sq. yds. to M/s. Grover Steel Corporation. M/s.Grover Steel Corporation had three partners : (i) Smt.Usha Grover (mother of the petitioner) 30% share in the partnership; (ii) petitioner 30% share; and (iii) Sh.Amar Nath (since deceased) 40% share in the partnership. A perpetual lease in respect of aforesaid plot was duly registered as document no.6117 in additional book no.1, volume 2913 on pages 15 to 20 registered on 5.9.1997 in the office of Sub - Registrar, New Delhi. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in accordance with the sanctioned plan, a building was constructed over the said plot of land jointly, out of the funds, by the partnership. The mother of the petitioner is stated to have died on 18.02.2003 leaving behind a registered Will dated 28.7.1993 whereby she bequeathed her entire 30% share in the partnership firm and other properties including industrial plot in the name of the petitioner herein. Sh.Amar Nath died on 13.12.1992 at the age of 86 years leaving behind a Will dated 8.7.1990 whereby he bequeathed his entire 40% share in the partnership firm including property in the name of the petitioner herein. It is contended that Chanan Devi wife of Amar Nath also died on 30.4.1994 at the age of 85 years.

(2.) IT is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Chanan Devi was real sister of Smt.Usha Grover (mother of the petitioner) and Sh.Amar Nath was husband of Smt.Usha Grover. Counsel for petitioner submits that Chanan Devi and her husband (Sh.Amar Nath) during their lifetime lived with petitioner's family as family member in one house and they (both Amar Nath and Smt. Chanan Devi) were taken care of by the petitioner.

(3.) COUNSEL for petitioner submits that all documents as demanded by the DDA duly attested by the Notary Public were submitted on 3.1.2006. Petitioner thereafter made several representations to the DDA and also sent reminders, however, he was informed by letter dated 12.3.2008 by which DDA made a demand of Rs.27,20,415/ - as unearned increase.