ASSAN G.TAJWANI Vs. LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner, namely, Shri Gyan Chand was the owner of Property No. 5/37, Old Rajinder Nagar. Shri Gyan Chand died on 19.08.1983. According to the petitioner, in his life time, late Shri Gyan Chand had executed a Will dated 20.03.1976, thereby bequeathing the property in question solely to the petitioner. The petitioner before this Court applied for grant of probate in regard to the estate of late Shri Gyan Chand. The learned District Judge, vide order dated 26.07.1997, granted Letter of Administration with copy of the Will attached to it, in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said Letter of Administration, the petitionerm vide application dated 12.02.2010 submitted on 18.03.2010, applied to the Land and Development Officer for substitution of leasehold rights of the aforesaid property in his name. On 16.04.2010, he submitted another application for conversion of the said property into freehold property and also deposited a sum of Rs 12,400/- towards conversion charges.

(2.) Vide communication dated 17.10.2011, the Land & Development Officer allowed substitution of the leasehold rights in the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner. However, it was stated in clause 4 of the said letter, that substitution of leasehold rights being not in the line of direct succession, the case had been treated as a case of first transfer. It was further stated in the said letter that since the petitioner was only an Administrator of the property, the property cannot be converted into freehold. Thus, both the applications of the petitioner, one for substitution of leasehold rights in his name and another for conversion of rights from leasehold to freehold were dealt with by this order. Vide subsequent communication dated 19.12.2011, the Deputy Land and Development Officer, referring to the application of the petitioner dated 28.10.2011, whereby he had raised objection in the matter of substitution in his name as administrator, intimated that the letter dated 17.10.2011 had been issued as per probate order of the Court and the legal opinion received by the office. It was reiterated that the request for grant of conversion into freehold could not be acceded to. The conversion charges paid by the petitioner were refunded vide communication dated 13/05.01.2012.

(3.) Being aggrieved from the refusal of the respondents to substitute the leasehold rights of the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner without any rider/condition and to convert the said property into freehold, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-