SEEMA BANSAL Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in these petitions is to the demand of the respondent DDA for unearned increase. THE petitioner in each of the cases is the purchaser in an auction held in the year 2005 by the Delhi Financial Corporation (DFC) (not a party in these proceedings) of the plots of land admeasuring 44 and 50 sq.m. respectively in Pocket-F, PVC Bazar, Tikri Kalan, Delhi. DFC came to auction the said plots for the reason of the original allottees of the plots having failed to re-pay the dues of DFC. THE petitioners thereafter as per the terms of the said auction applied to the respondent DDA for mutation/transfer and execution of lease deed of the said plots in their favour. THE respondent DDA in the year 2007, communicated the unearned increase payable by each of the petitioners. Impugning the computation of the said unearned increase, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) THOUGH pursuant to the allotment of the plots aforesaid by the respondent DDA, perpetual lease deed were to be executed but were in fact not executed. However the terms and conditions of such allotment inter alia provide as under:-

(3.) IT is further the stand of DDA that as per the Unearned Increase Booklet of 1996, the value of plot is worked out on the basis of the highest rate of the following rates:-