ANUP KUMAR TANDON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plot No.143, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property) was agreed to be leased in 1949, perpetually in favour of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Shri Parshottam Singh and Shri Hargurcharan Singh. Formal agreement to lease was executed on 27.7.1961 by the President of India in favour of the said persons. In accordance with the agreement to lease, the lessees raised a double storey building on the plot of land leased out to them. On 10.5.1978, the lessees entered into an agreement to sell the property in favour of the petitioner. Clause IX of the Agreement to Lease provided that the lessor shall not prior to obtaining the lease from the President of India under Clause XIV without the consent of the Chief Commissioner, directly or indirectly assign, transfer or otherwise part with any interest in the property. Provided that in the event of sanction being granted, the lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase in the value of the land at the time of transfer. The amount to be recovered being 50% of the unearned increase. Lease deed in terms of Clause XIV of the agreement to lease was not executed by the President of India in favour of the lessees. The agreement to sell having been executed by the lessees in favour of the petitioner, an application was made by the lessees on 4.10.1978 for grant of permission to transfer the property in favour of the petitioner. Despite several reminders, no reply was received to the said application made by the lessees for permission to transfer the property in favour of the petitioner and the permission was withheld without assigning any reason. After waiting for considerable period, lessees executed the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner and got it registered before the Sub-Registrar on 22.6.1979 thereby transferring their right/title and interest in the property in favour of the petitioner. At the time of making the application, the market value of the land, as fixed by the respondent was Rs.200/- per Sq. yard. It is stated in the writ petition that when the petitioner approached respondent No.2 about the amount of unearned increase, payable by him for permission to transfer the property in his favour, he was allegedly informed that 50% of the unearned increase would be payable on the prevalent market rate of rent of Rs.200/- per Sq. Yard and in accordance with the area of the land, he would be liable to pay Rs.78,740/- as 50% unearned increase of the value of the land. It is submitted that the petitioner acting on this representation made provision for the aforesaid amount of money and got the sale deed executed and registered in his favour only thereafter. Despite the respondent having been informed about the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioner, no action was taken by the respondents either against the lessees or against the petitioner. By a letter dated 19.3.1981, the respondent raised a demand for Rs.2,52,020/- towards payment of 50% unearned increase in the value of the land and also claimed certain other charges towards regularisation of alleged misuse, etc. Respondent also claimed a sum of Rs.600/- as the penalty for transfer without permission of the lessor. This demand dated 19.3.1981 was challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents framed a scheme for conversion of the leasehold property into freehold and gave option to the lessees of the properties to apply for said conversion on payment of conversion charges in accordance with the scheme. Provisions were also made in the scheme as well as in the subsequent circulars issued by the respondents for conversion of leasehold property into freehold even in favour of persons who had agreed to purchase the property under an agreement to sell and General Power of Attorney executed in their favour by the original lessor. On such scheme having come into existence, the petitioner got the writ petition amended and prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondent is that the question of processing the case for grant of sale permission could be examined by the respondent only after the receipt of completion certificate as stipulated in the agreement to lease and thereafter intended lessees were required to execute the perpetual lease deed by the President of India as stipulated in Clause IX of the Agreement to lease. It is stated that till the above requirements were completed the intended lessees were restrained from assigning, transferring or otherwise parting with any interest in the said property. The contention, therefore, is that without the perpetual lease deed, the status of the intended lessees was that of a licensee and they had no interest in the land, which they could transfer to the third party. It is also the case of the respondents that though an application was made on 4.10.1978 for grant of permission to sell the property in favour of the petitioner, however, the lessees obtained permission of the competent authority under Section 27(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regularisation) Act, 1976 only on 30.11.1978 and since prior to the granting of lease, the completion certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of the building constructed on the plot was required to be produced, they were requested on 9.1.1979 to furnish the necessary certificate. It is submitted that since no certificate was furnished, permission could not be granted by the respondents to the petitioner. The respondents have, however, not denied that by letter dated 19.3.1981 they not only granted permission for transfer of property by the lessees to the petitioner but they also claimed 50% unearned increase amounting to Rs.2,52,020/- being the Government share in the value of the land along with damages, ground rent, etc.. It is not stated in the counter affidavit nor is explained during arguments as to why the said letter was issued if the stand of the respondent was that permission could not be granted without furnishing completion certificate in terms of the Agreement to Lease. It is not denied by learned counsel for the respondent that the unearned increase claimed in the letter dated 19.3.1981 has been claimed taking the value of the land at Rs.600/- per Sq. yard.