It appears that thereafter there was a companyrespond ence between the parties which finally culminated in the Governments letter of June 12, 1987 which virtually reject ed the representations of the lessees.
R.L. Gupta Asstt.
In the first in stance, this application was sent by the late Hans Raj Gupta for himself and for Dev Raj Gupta and others.
It has there fore been decided that a fresh application for the permis sion to companystruct the Multi storeyed Building duly signed by all the companylessees be asked for.
Thanking you, We do number have on record reply, if any, sent to this letter.
It was the companytention of the petitioners that since they had applied to the respondents for permission to companyvert the user on February 15, 1978, they were liable to pay charges calculated with reference to the said date and number as the respondents had done with reference to May 25,1981.
Please let me know your terms in respect thereof together with companymercialisation charges that will have to be paid by us.
stating therein that their letter was receiving attention.
The main challenge in the petition was to the base year for the calculation of the charges for companyversion of the land from the residential to the companymercial purpose.
Thereaf ter, on February 27, 1981, the late Hans Raj Gupta, and one Raj Kumar Gupta as a companystituted Attorney for respondents 1 4, sent an application in the prescribed form.
In September 1962, the Delhi Development Authority prepared a Master Plan for Delhi under Section 7 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The lessees of the property at that time were Dev Raj Gupta Prem Raj Gupta and Pradeep Kumar Gupta in addition to the late Hans Raj Gupta.
Their second companytention was that for the same reason numbercharges for the misuse of the land companyld be levied after February 15, 1978 and their third companytention was that numberinterest companyld be charged on the alleged additional premium which was calculated by taking into companysideration May 25, 1981 as the base date.
The letter also referred to their intention to sell the property to M s. Central Investment Private Limited and the United Towers India Private Limited.
As above.
The letter is also addressed number to the late Hans Raj Gupta and Dev Rai Gupta and others, but to the late Hans Raj Gupta, Dev Raj Gupta, Prem Raj Gupta and Pradeep Kumar Gupta.
In case numberreply is received from you within 15 days from the said date of receipt on this letter, then it will be presumed that you are number interested for the permis sion to companystruct the multi storeyed Commercial Building and the case will be treated as closed To this reminder, the late Hans Raj Gupta replied that the letter of March 1, 1980 sent by the Government appeared to have been lost in transit and did number reach their hands and requested for a duplicate of the same to enable them to take necessary steps.
Further representa tions were made thereafter for reconsideration of the terms and companyditions offered by the Government for companyversion of the use of the leased land but it appears that they were number replied to.
The other terms and companyditions imposed by the said letter are number in dispute and, therefore, they need number be reproduced here.
Yours faithfully, S d Hans Raj Gupta for Hans Raj Gupta, Dev Raj Gupta and Others We have then on record a letter dated March 1, 1980 by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to the lessees as follows S Shri Hans Raj Gupta, Dev Raj Gupta, Prem Raj Gupta Pardeep Kumar Gupta, C o Shri Hans Raj Gupta, 3 Ratendon Road, New Delhi.
The result was that the lessees approached the High Court by a writ petition challenging the appellants letter dated June 12, 1987 reiterating the terms and companydi tions which were intimated earlier by the letter of January 12, 1984.
April 25, 1977 addressed by the heirs and executors of the estate of late Smt.
On receipt of this letter, the late Hans Raj Gupta and other lessees made a representation on March 31, 1984 to the Works Housing Minister of the Government of India requesting reconsideration of the terms and companyditions imposed in the Governments letter of permission of January 12, 1984.
respondents 5 11.
5, Block No.
On May 20, 1938, Smt.
The authority also referred to the reflection of the same by the companypetent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 stated that the same had created some doubts about the ownership of the land.
Before the names of respondents 1 4 and the late Hans Raj Gupta were mutated in the property register on November 21, 1977, a letter was written on April 25, 1977 by one of the lessees to be precise, by the first respondent, through an advocate, to the Land Development Officer which read as follows .
We are informed at the Bar that the request for such mutation was made on October 12, 1972 on the basis of a partition deed of December 15, 1970 after the death of Smt.
The regular lease deed was drawn up in 1938.
Your early response in the matter shall highly be appreciated.
The Government by its letter of August 11, 1980 sent a companyy of its letter of March 1, 1980 and along with it also sent to the late Hans Raj Gupta and others a show cause numberice dated May 31, 1980 which had also been received back by the Government undelivered.
Neither the said letter was signed by Dev Raj Gupta Prem Raj Gupta and Pradeep Kumar Gupta number was it stated any where in the letter that they had authorised the late Hans Raj Gupta to seek permission on their behalf.
The plans have already been submitted to the D.M.C. after their approval by the Urban Land Art Commis sioner.
As has been pointed out hereinabove, after the letter of February 15, 1978 addressed by the late Hans Raj Gupta and others to the authority, we have on record only the letter of March 1, 1980 addressed by the authority to Hans Raj Gupta and others pointing out that applications in respect of the land were received by him from different persons some of whom were number even companylessees, to intimate companyversion charges for the companystruction of multi storeyed companymercial building.
Leelawati who died on November 6, 1969.
The interest in the lease devolved on respondents 1 4 and one Hans Raj Gupta and their names were mutated in the record of rights as is evidenced by the Government Memo of November 21, 1977.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.
For the purpose of the questions to be answered in this appeal, we are number much companycerned with the revolution of property after the death of late Hans Raj Gupta.
My client Shri Dev Raj Gupta son of late Smt.
Rama Bai company structed a residential building on the land.
It was leased by the Governor General in Council to one Smt.
In the accompanying letter of the same date, if was mentioned that the application was sent with reference to the Land Devel opment Officers letter dated March 1, 1980 and the discus sions held in his office on February 9, 1981 for permission to companystruct a multi storeyed building.
You arc therefore requested to make an application in the prescribed proforma for the permission to companystruct the Multi storeyed Commercial building duly signed by all the companylessees.
Hans Raj Gupta died on July 31, 1985.
Nor did he make clear who the said others were.
Rama Bai assigned the lease in favour of Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The land involved in the present ease is at 20, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and admeasures about 0,956 acre.
It appears that Hans Raj Gupta had left a will.
Dear Sir, I am to say that the applications in respect of the above mentioned premises received so far from different persons some of them are number companylessees to intimate company version charges for the companystruction of Multi stroyed Commercial building and your intention to sell the property to M s. Central Investment P Ltd. and the United Towers India Pvt.
But it appears that there was some letter of the same date, viz.,
205 known as 20 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
The only development thereafter was, as stated earlier, the Government Memo of November 21, 1977 companymuni cating that the names of respondents 1 4 and of the late Hans Raj Gupta were mutated in the property register against the leased land.
Sub Premises situated on Plot No.
Rama Bai on November 17, 1931.
Yours faithfully, S d Encl.
The terms and companyditions mentioned in this companymunication included, among other things, the payment of additional premium of Rs.1,77,31,548 in jumpsum and payment of interest on the additional premium at 10 per cent per annum from 27th May, 1981 to 14th July, 1983 being Rs.37,84,349.55 and from 15th July, 1983 to the date of payment, at Rs.
Ltd. but rejection of the same by .he Compe tent authority under Urban Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 have created some doubts about that ownership.
Please let me know the charges, if any, payable for companyversion of the land use from residen tial to companymercial for companystructing a multi storeyed companymer cial building on the said plot after demolishing the exist ing bungalow companystructed on the above said plot.
Leela Gupta proposes to companystruct a multi storeyed building on the above mentioned plot.
All that is neces sary for us to numbere from the companytents of the application form is firstly that it was mentioned there against the relevant query that the plan for companystructing companymercial building was sanctioned on January 21, 1981 by the New Delhi Municipal Committee and that exemption application under Section 20 1 of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 was being processed.
1,47,762.90 per month.
It was a perpetual lease given on a premium of Rs.8,000 at the annual rent of Rs.400.
On February 15, 1978, the late Hans Raj Gupta, for himself and Dev Raj Gupta and others, wrote a letter to the Land Development Officer stating therein as follows Under the Master Plan and the Zonal Plan the above plot number residential can be developed for the companystruction of a Commercial building.
The late Hans Raj Gupta did number sign it for Dev Raj Gupta and others as the holder of the power of attorney from them.
b from which date the companyversion charges are leviable?
1989 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
It may be mentioned here that this Govern ment Memo was addressed to the late Hans Raj Gupta and respondents 1 4 care of the said Advocate, Shri Prem Shan kar.
S. Krishnamurthy Ayer, T.V.S.N. Chari and C.V. Rao for the Appellants.
and c from which date interest is chargeable on the companyversion charges?
2038 of 1988.
1996 of 1990.
On January 12, 1984, the Govern ment intimated to the parties that with reference to their letter of February 27, 1981 seeking permission for companystruc tion of multi storeyed companymercial building, the lessor, i.e., the Government was willing to companysider their said request provided they were willing to companyply with the terms and companyditions mentioned therein full in advance.
Ashok Grover and V.N. Kaura for the Respondents.
What that letter was has number companye on record.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. This appeal raises some questions which are important both for the Delhi Administration as well as for their lessees of land.
Shortly stated, the questions in volved are a what companystitutes an application for permis sion to companyvert the user of the land?
Leelawati on November 26, 1969.
On June 3, 1980, a reminder was sent by the Government to the late Hans Raj Gupta and respondents 1 4 which reads as follows I am to refer to this Office Letter No.
Settlement Commissioner.
LI 9/205 5 / 80/197 dated 1.3.1980 on the above subject and to say that numberreply thereto has to far been.
