DDA Vs. KIRAN KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLOT No. D -945, New Friends Colony was allotted to one Mr. Amrik Singh and a sub -lease deed in his favour was executed on 18.01.1973. Vide registered Will dated 14.10.1997, he bequeathed the aforesaid property of the respondent Kiran Kohli. On the demise of Shri Amrik Singh, the aforesaid property was mutated in the name of the respondent on the basis of the Will executed in her favour. Vide letter dated 14.04.1986, the appellant - -DDA suspended the letter dated 02.09.1982, whereby the aforesaid property was mutated by it in the name of the respondent, alleging contravention of clause ii. 6(a) and (b) of the sub lease deed. The plea taken by DDA, in nutshell, was that the respondent had purchased the aforesaid property from Mr. Amrik Singh and, therefore, the Will executed in her favour was for consideration and not out of natural love and affection. In the meanwhile, DDA also notified a scheme for conversion of leasehold properties into freehold properties, DDA also decided to grant freehold rights also in respect of those properties which had already changed hands from the original allottee, provide the purchases paid 1/3 of the prescribed conversion charges as penalty or additional conversion fee. The documents required by DDA for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights in such cases comprised agreement to sell and power of attorney in favour of the purchaser. In the absence of these two vital documents, conversion of leasehold property into freehold property was not envisaged under the scheme notified by DDA. The respondent applied for conversion of the aforesaid property into freehold on 30.08.1996 and also agreed to pay the prescribed conversion charges. DDA, however, did not allow the conversion sought by her.

(2.) BEING aggrieved from the act of the appellant in suspending the mutation and refusing conversion of the aforesaid property into freehold, the respondent filed a writ petition, seeking direction to the appellant to convert the aforesaid property into freehold. The respondent also assailed the demand of 50% of the earned increase by DDA vide its letter dated 08.05.1986.

(3.) CLAUSE II. 6(a) and (b) of the sub -lease executed by DDA in favour of Shri Amrik Singh reads as under: