HARJINDER KAUR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUASHING of DDA's demand of 22nd February, 2008 for additional unearned increase and composition fee with interest as a pre-condition to convert premises no. D-79, East of Kailash, New Delhi (henceforth referred to as ,,subject premises) from leasehold to freehold, is sought in this petition.

(2.) THE background facts as projected by the petitioner are that subject to petitioner undertaking to pay additional unearned increase if demanded by DDA after finalization of the policy, the subject property was mutated in May, 1990 in the name of petitioner upon payment of unearned increase of Rs.18,750/-. THEreafter, petitioner claims to have requested the respondent to extend the time for raising construction on the subject premises and vide representation of 16th September, 1991 had sought exemption from payment of composition fee as petitioner's request for mutating the subject premises was pending with DDA for a decade. As per the petitioner, she was granted an audience by the then Lt. Governor of Delhi in December, 1991 and an assurance was given that the demand of composition fee would be waived and thereafter the respondent had remained silent. Petitioner had applied in January, 2005 for conversion of subject premises from leasehold to freehold, alongwith conversion charges and relevant documents to the DDA.

(3.) RESPONDENT's aforesaid Additional Affidavit reveals that the subject premises had changed hands not simply on basis of the Will of 29th August, 1973 in favour of petitioner but was accompanied by Special Power of Attorney in favour of husband of the petitioner. Though consideration for the execution of the Special Power of Attorney is not disclosed in this document (Annexure A-5), but its bare perusal reveals that on the strength of this document coupled with the aforesaid Will (Annexure A-4), respondent had reasonably concluded in its Additional Affidavit that through the aforesaid Special Power of Attorney and Will, the subject premises was actually sold to petitioner. RESPONDENT's office noting of 20th January, 1989 (Annexure A-11) to the Additional Affidavit does indicate that the opinion of respondent's Deputy Director of the Will in question seemingly not disclosing any monetary consideration was not accepted by the Vice-Chairman of respondent and rightly so, as on perusal of respondent's Additional Affidavit and the documents accompanying it, what emerges is that the subject premises had come in the hands of petitioner not by way of an innocuous Will but was, infact an attorney transaction.