RAIZADA BROS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in a public auction held on 31.10.1973, conducted by respondent-Delhi Development Authority (in short "DDA") purchased plot bearing No.18/3, Block 'D', Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioners that after taking over the possession of the aforesaid plot of land, the petitioners wrote to the DDA to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. One such letter is dated 25.2.1974, which is at page-39 of the paper book, interalia, requesting the respondent to execute lease deed. It seems correspondence was exchanged between the petitioners and the respondent. Some time vide its letter dated 13.5.1974 respondent informed the petitioners to collect the lease deed for stamping. Petitioner on 27.4.1976 submitted to the respondent three copies of the perpetual lease deed duly stamped by the office of Collector of Stamps vide its letter of even date, which is at page-45 of the paper book. Respondent vide its letter dated 17.9.1976 wrote to the petitioner that certain documents were to be sent to enable them for proceeding further for execution/registration of the lease deed, the said letter is at page-46 of the paper book. Subsequently a letter was written by the respondent dated 20.6.1984 to the following effect:-

(2.) With this background of events, Mr.Arun Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that in spite of the letter written by the respondent way back in the year 1984, no lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner till date. Mr.Arun Mohan has further contended that the stand of the respondent that on account of transfer of share within the family members of the petitioner, respondent in 1986 informed the petitioners that petitioners had to pay unearned increase as said transfer of shares amounted to transfer of land is illegal and arbitrary. He has argued that there was no change in the company, same was not converted from partnership to a company nor any change was brought in the character of company. Company being a separate entity, the disputed property was owned by the company and any change in the holding of the shares among the family would not attract any unearned increase as same being not leviable. He has further contended that the stand of the respondent that unearned increase was on the basis of the amended policy of the respondent-DDA dated 8.5.1979 charging unearned increase retrospectively is dehors illegal. He has further contended that respondent cannot demand any amount on account of a policy which came into exstence in 1979 whereas the petitioners have participated in the open auction on the basis of terms and conditions of auction of 1973. Mr.Mohan has contended that the draft lease deed as prepared by the respondent in 1974 did not fasten any liability on the petitioner on account of impugned unearned increase. Arguing vehemently that respondent is not right in demanding unearned increase on account of transfer of share to some members of the family or on account of some adjustment between the shareholders in the same family, learned counsel has contended that, as a matter of fact, by transfter or sale of shares, it is the shares, which are sold and not the land and as such there is no transfer of land which would attract unearned increae in the case of the petitioner. For this proposition he has cited Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Company AIR [53] 1966 SC 1393 Western Coalfields Ltd Vs.Special Area Development Authority AIR 1982 SC 697 Phoenix Properties Pvt Ltd & anr. Vs.Union of India and anr. 1989 [1] Delhi Lawyer 326 Scindia Potteries and Services Ltd. Vs.Deputy Land and Development Officer 1992 [2] Delhi Layer 75 V B Rangaraj Vs. V B Gopalkrishnan & ors. (1992) 1 SCC 160 and DDA Vs.Skipper (1996) 4 SCC 622.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Jayant Bhushan, counsel appearing for the respondent, has contended that as per the terms and conditions of the draft original lease deed itself, respondentwas entitled to charge unearned increase. He has frurther contended that in cases where on accont of ingenuity or motive to evade unearned increase, shares have been transfered, this Court may lift the corporate veil and see behind the smoke screen as to what is the nature of such transfer and in this connection, he has cited the cases of Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs.Sri Mennakshi Mills Ltd.Madurai AIR 1987 SC 819, Juggilal Kamlapat Vs.Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. AIR 1969 SC 932, The Workmen Employed in Associated Rubber Industry Limited Bhavnagar Vs.The Associated Rubber Industry Limited Bhavnagar and anr. AIR 1986 SC 1, State of UP & ors. Vs.Renusagar Power Co. & ors. (1988) 4 SCC 59 and Harish Tandon Vs. Addl.District Magistrate, Allahabad, UP & ors. (1995) 2 SCC 537.