Y P NARULA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed this petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to issue the deed of conveyance with regard to the property in question in terms of the application of the petitioner filed on 25.3.1994 and for quashing the demand made vide the letter dated 9.5.1994. While the matter was pending, the Court on 13.5.1997 directed the respondents to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass an order in accordance with law. On such directions being given, the respondents after hearing the petitioner passed the order dated 13.5.1997 and pursuant to that order made a demand on 5.9.1997 reducing the earlier demand by about Rs.57,000/-. By the demand letter dated 5.9.1997, the respondents have claimed damages for unauthorised construction in the property and enhanced ground rent for the period 31.12.1987 to 13.4.1994. Pursuant to this demand having been made, the writ petition was amended and the petitioner has challenged the demand dated 5.9.1997 as well. This demand has now further been reduced by the respondents by its letter dated 25.2.1999. By letter dated 25.2.1999, the respondents have claimed damages for unauthorised construction only upto 2.5.1999 when the property was demolished and have claimed enhanced ground rent @ Rs.8,360.40 paise per annum for the period 31.12.1987 to 13.4.1994 and interest as well for the said period. The controversy in the present petition, therefore, is confined only to the demand raised by letter 25.2.1999. The facts in short giving rise to the present petition are :

(2.) The property in question was allotted in the name of one Mr.R.P. Mahajan. The brother of the allottee filed suit in the Court of Sub-Judge being Suit No.149/1981 seeking declaration that the property was the joint property of all the brothers and the petitioner was holding the same as benami for all of them. By a judgment and decree passed on 31.3.1984, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and it was declared that the property was the joint property of all the brothers. Pursuant to the decree passed in the aforesaid suit, the property was mutated in the name of all the four brothers. By the sale deed dated 8.1.1989, all the four brothers, after obtaining necessary sale permission from the office of the Land and Development Officer, sold the property to one Mr.Rajiv Sikka. The property was duly mutated in the name of Mr.Rajiv Sikka by the respondents vide the letter dated 17.1.1989. Before the property was mutated in the name of Mr.Rajiv Sikka, he entered into an agreement on 12.10.1988 with the petitioner for sale of the said property. On payment of the entire sale consideration, the petitioner took possession of the property. Mr.Rajiv Sikka on receiving entire sale consideration executed an agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt, possession letter and other necessary documents required for conveying the property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner after purchasing the property demolished the same and after getting the plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, erected a new building on the aforesaid plot of land. The completion certificated was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 20th June, 1990.

(3.) In the year 1990-1991, the Government of India announced a Scheme for conversion of leasehold property into freehold and invited applications from the property owners for conversion of their properties under the Scheme. The petitioner on 25.3.1994, made an application for conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold in the prescribed proforma. A sum of Rs.1,04,541/- was deposited by the petitioner towards conversion fee, additional conversion fee, arrears of ground rent and processing fee, etc. Without processing the application of the petitioner for conversion, the respondents sent the demand letter dated 9.5.1994 claiming damages from the petitioner for unauthorised construction in the building for the period 14.7.1987 to 31.3.1994. The respondents also demanded from the petitioner a sum of Rs.54,686/- by way of ground rent and another sum of Rs.17,356/- by way of penalty. It was pointed out to the respondents that the building plans were sanctioned in the end of the year 1988/89 and there was thus no question of their being unauthorised construction in the premises till 31.3.1994. It was also explained to the respondent that the petitioner was not liable to pay enhanced ground rent as the sale in favour of Mr.Rajiv Sikka was the first sale and not second sale as has been treated by the respondents. Along with his letter dated 19.5.1994, the petitioner also enclosed an order dated 16.9.1991 passed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 with regard to another property having similar facts wherein the mutation in favour of the actual owner was not treated to be the first transfer under the lease deed. Since the demand was reiterated by the respondents by their letter dated 11.11.1994, the petitioner again vide his letter dated 5.4.1995 called upon the respondents to examine the documents furnished by him along with his application. The case having not been settled to the satisfaction of the petitioner, he filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs: -