VIDYA WATI THUKRAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India two letters of the Respondent (hereafter referred to as "landdo") dated 16. 3. 1992 and 9. 3. 1994 have been challenged. A quashing order has been claimed.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that one Shri K. N. Ahuja was the original allottee of property being I-G/26, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter called "suit property" ). He transferred/sold his rights to one Smt. Sita Devi by a deed dated 13. 9. 1972. The original term of allotment contained a stipulation that permission had to be sought for transfers, Smt. Sita Devi applied for permission, through her Attorney Ms. Ranu Thukral by letter dated 22. 6. 1990 for transfer to the Petitioners. The Landdo by its letter dated 6. 8. 1991 granted permission on condition that unearned increase of Rs. 42,669/- was to be paid. Para 6 of the letter also required the intending purchaser (i. e the Petitioner) to furnish an undertaking that the difference of 50% unearned increase on revised terms would be paid as and when demanded. This was followed by letter dated 11. 10. 1991 to Ms. Sita Devi permitting her to transfer and sell the suit property to the intending purchaser, i. e the Petitioners.

(3.) ON 30. 12. 1991 the Vendor, Smt. Sita Devi executed the Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner which was duly registered. By the first impugned letter dated 16. 3. 1992 the Landdo raised a fresh demand for Rs. 2,42,476/-towards unearned increase on revised rates. The Petitioners protested the demand, stating that the Sale Deed had already been executed in December, 1991, further to the letter dated 11. 10. 1991. On 9. 3. 1994 the Landdo issued the following letter:-