RAM GOPAL NAYYAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Ram Gopal Nayyar Son of late Lachhman Dass Nayyar and Mr.Harish Nayyar son of Mr.Ram Gopal Nayyar have filed the present writ petition seeking number of reliefs. Petitioners assail the demand for payment of unearned increase by the L & DO, as a condition for grant of consent for transfer as un-warranted under the terms of perpetual lease and under the provisions of the Government Grants Act.

(2.) During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, Mr.K.N.Kataria, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions from Mr.Ashok Marwaha, Advocate and petitioner Mr.Ram Gopal Nayyar, who was present in court, stated that the petitioners would be satisfied, if the unearned increase is charged from them at the rates, which were prevailing upon the date of application made for seeking consent for transfer.

(3.) It would be relevant at this stage to note the facts in brief: (i) The L & DO had executed a registered perpetual lease deed in respect of plot of land situated at K-2A, Block-1 in the New Capital of Delhi, now known as 41 Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi admeasuring 1.036 acres in favour of Shri B.N.Bhambri. Pursuant to the grant of lease and taking possession, the said Shri B.N. Bhambri constructed two independent houses on the said plot of land after obtaining permission from the authorities and getting the plan sanctioned. Petitioners claim that one house was built on an area of 2465.3 sq.yds, now numbered as 41, Prithvi Raj Road and the other on an area of 2549.7 sq.yds. now numbered as 41-A, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. It is claimed that two separate houses have separate approach and passages for ingress and egress etc. Mr.B.N.Bhambri, the original lessee died on 25.12.1960 and the plot/property was mutated in the name of Shri Bajjar Sen Bhambri and Shri Ravinder Sen Bhambri, his sons on the basis of his last Will dated 25.4.1950, (ii) Petitioner no.1 and his wife late Smt.Sharda Nayyar, entered into an agreement dated 24.5.1972 to purchase house built on 41, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi admeasuring 2465.3 sq.yds. It is claimed that in part performance of the contract, the petitioners were put in possession of the property on 24.5.1972 and has since then been paying the property tax. Wife of petitioner No.2 expired and thereupon her rights devolved upon petitioner no.2, son of the petitioner. (iii) Vendor Bajjar Sen Bhambri and Ravinder Sen Bhambri applied to the Secretary, Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration for grant of permission for the sale of bungalow No.41, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi held under the lease from Land and Building office (Works and Housing) Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Thereafter vendors responding to letter dated 18.7.1972 from the respondent gave the status of occupation of the house in respect of property No.41, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. Respondents were also informed that House No.43 A, Prithvi Raj Road had been duly mutated. Request was made for mutating the property in favour of the said vendors. On 19.10.1974, a notice under Section 80 CPC was sent on behalf of petitioner No.1 and his wife, notifying the respondents that permission of the government to sell property no.41, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi, to the petitioner be granted with intimation of the same being also sent to the vendors Bhambr i brothers, so that the petitioners could obtain the conveyance from the said Bhambri brothers. Respondents were notified that in case the above demand was not complied with, a suit for specific performance would be instituted. Petitioners thereafter instituted suit bearing No.71/75 for specific performance in respect of the agreement dated 24.5.1972 impleading respondent L&DO as a party. (iv) Counsel for the respondents made a statement during the procesdings in suit to the effect that they would consider the request for transfer in case the petitioners were successful in obtaining a decree in the suit against the vendors. Respondents were thereupon deleted from the array of defendant in suit. Liberty was also granted to the petitioners to avail of legal remedies in case the respondents declined or refused permission. The suit was decreed on 9.7.1985. A decree of specific performance was granted on 9.7.1985. No appeal was preferred against the judgement passed in the said suit. As the vendors failed to execute the sale deed and have the same registered within the stipulated period, the sale deed was executed and registered by an officer of this court in favour of the petitioner on 13.9.1985.