B S BHATNAGAR Vs. CHAIRMAN DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from DDA on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of DDA, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that DDA, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund alongwith interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is :

(2.) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from DDA on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of DDA, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that DDA, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund alongwith interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is :

(3.) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from DDA on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of DDA, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that DDA, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund alongwith interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is :