The liability to pay unearned increase is fasten on all transfers.
Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.02.12 164142 IST Reason Ltd. and Ors.
2.4 The said property was put to public auction on 20.03.1989 and M s. Karamdeep Finance Investment I Pvt.
In the auction numberice which was issued by the companypetent authority, the leasehold rights of the property were sought to be put for auction.
2.2 On 29.09.1988, Shri Trilochan Singh Rana entered into an agreement to sell the said property to M s Ocean Construction Industries Pvt.
Parking space for a Maruti Car in the Driveway.
The said bid was accepted by the Department.
Solicitor General for the DDA.
The depositing of companyversion charges by the writ petitioner itself indicates that the understanding was that they have purchased in auction only the leasehold rights.
On 25.09.1997, a registered Sale Deed was executed in favour of the writ petitioner by the President of India through the Director, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building, New Delhi, to pay an amount towards unearned increase to the extent of Rs.17,88,114.55.
House Building Society Ltd., and measuring 150 Sq.
The writ petitioner was put in actual physical possession of the said property on 25.04.1989.
E 25.60 lacs 444 Ground Floor , Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi 110048.
On receipt of the application for companyversion, the DDA calculated the 50 amount of unearned increase of the market value and intimated the same i.e. Rs.48,16,853/ to the auction purchaser i.e. the writ petitioner.
Thereupon, the DDA by a letter dated 28.04.2000 raised a demand of Rs.1,43,90,348/ .
Property No.
2.3 Thereafter, the DDA Finance Member vide letter dated 12.01.1989 required the Chief Commissioner Tech.
It is submitted that admittedly the property in question was leasehold property leased out to Shri Trilochan Singh Rana.
The Ground Floor companysists of drawing dining bed room, kitchen and a garage.
This is a lease hold residential plot measuring 725 sq.
The lease came to end when Income Tax Department purchased the property.
All rights, titles and Interests in the dwelling unit on ground floor, and mazanine floor of House No.
Ltd. Trilochan Singh Rana and Mrs. Rani Rana were only lease holders.
The writ petitioner being the highest bidder of the auction was liable to pay unearned increase.
Later, an order under Section 269UD 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Appropriate Authority for companypulsory acquisition of the property at Rs.76,00,000/ on 13.12.1988.
We have heard Shri Aman Lekhi, learned Addl.
Both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this companymon judgment.
Front lawn and back companyrtyard on the ground floor.
The writ petitioner paid the full amount and was delivered the possession on 25.04.1989.
Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior companynsel has appeared for M s. Karamdeep Finance Investment I Pvt.
More so unearned increase was paid by the Income Tax Department earlier which has been numbericed in the companyveyance deed itself, unearned increase having been paid when the Income Tax Department acquired the property there was numberoccasion to make any further payment by auction purchaser.
Shri Mehta further referring to the Sale Deed executed in favour of the writ petitioner, submits that Clause 1 and Clause 2 of the Lease Deed clearly vest absolute right to the aforesaid property in favour of the vendee.
yds alongwith the super structure build thereon.
The petitioner made an application to the DDA for grant of freehold rights and also deposited amount of Rs.3,45,729/ .
A 8 in the lay out plan of Vasant Vihar of the Government Servants Cooperative.
This is a lease hold residential plot N. 23 in Street No.
Hence, they filed a writ petition for refund of the companyversion charges which were deposited by them under bona fide mistake.
Mt. together with buildings and structure thereon and fixtures and fitting therein Property No.
2.5 The writ petitioner moved an application with the DDA for companyversion of leasehold rights in the plot into free hold rights and also deposited a sum of Rs.3,45,729/ as companyversion charges with the DDA.
with a double storeyed building.
A 8/23, Vasant 36.60 Lacs Vihar, New Delhi.
Covered area 1350 Sq.
There is merger of leasehold rights in the lessor, the Government.
The writ petitioner companyld number have purchased in auction anything more than the leasehold rights.
The First Floor companysists of 3 bed rooms, 3 bath rooms, store and a lobby over the garage.
Sale Deed was also executed in favour of writ petitioner on 25.09.1997.
The value of the property having substantially increased the unearned increase ought to have been paid and both the Single Judge and the Division Bench erred in setting aside the demand of unearned increase.
While processing the application for companyversion of leasehold rights to free hold rights, DDA made a demand of Rs.1,43,90,348/ towards unearned increase, which was challenged by the writ petitioner.
14, Block A 2, 1.08 crores Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi.
There are 2 floors each having a servant room W.O. and a companyking verandah.
This is a lease hold residential plot measuring 195.097 sq.
Both the parties being aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench has filed these appeals.
Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior companynsel appearing for the writ petitioner refuting the submissions made by the learned companynsel for the appellant DDA supported the judgment of the High Court in so far as it held that there is numberliability to pay unearned increase on the auction purchaser.
The interest of Shri Trilochan Singh Rana was acquired under Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
He submits that companypetent authority having acquired the right of the property under Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, the leasehold rights are also vested in the Government.
Solicitor General submits that both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench erred in setting aside the demand raised by the DDA of unearned increase.
A Perpetual Lease Deed was executed in his favour on 18.03.1970.
yards in a public auction by DDA.
As per clause 4 a of the Perpetual Lease Deed, the lessee was number entitled to sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the plot except with previous companysent in writing of the lessor, that is, the President of India.
The Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department vide his letter dated 30.01.1989 remitted a cheque for Rs.17,86,420/ favouring Delhi Development Authority towards payment of unearned increase in respect of said property.
2.8 The Delhi High Court passed the impugned judgment and final order dated 30.03.2016 in LPA No.226 of 2014 vide which the direction of learned Single Judge in W.P. C No.4152 of 2000 to refund the amount of companyversion fee paid by the writ petitioner has been set aside and partly allowed the appeal of the appellant DDA and also held that the unearned increase is number payable by the purchaser to the DDA.
In support of the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, Shri Mehta submits that what was companyveyed to the auction purchaser is number a leasehold right but absolute right to the property.
Property bearing House No.
2.7 Thereafter, the DDA filed a Letters Patent Appeal i.e. LPA No.226 of 2014 before the Delhi High Court against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. C NO.4152 of 2000.
He submits that there was numbercondition in the auction numberice that unearned increase is to be paid by the auction purchaser.
Indivisible and impartible ownership right of 35 in the land underneath of the said building and including the followings One drawing cum dining hall, three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, balcony, kitchen, storage space servants Quarters and servants bath rooms on ground floor.
In the event of the companysent being given, the lessor was entitled to impose such terms and companyditions as he deems fit and the lessee was under an obligation to pay 50 unearned increase of the market value of the plot i.e. the difference between the premium paid and the market value of the residential plot at the time of sale, transfer, assignment, or parting with the possession.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 30.03.2016 of Delhi High Court by which judgment Delhi High Court has partly allowed the LPA No.226 of 2014 Delhi Development Authority Signature Not Verified vs. M s. Karamdeep Finance and Investment I Pvt.
Shri Aman Lekhi, learned Addl.
Ltd. We have also heard learned companynsel for the Union of India.
Ingress and Egress from the main gate to the dwelling unit.
Ltd. The application in Form 37 I for sale of the said property was filed on 06.10.1988 under Section 269UD of Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking NOC from the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department.
The view of the High Court that the unearned increase is liable to be paid only in case of voluntary transfer is erroneous.
2.6 Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition being W.P. C No.4152 of 2000 before Delhi High Court.
Ltd., the writ petitioner have filed these two separate appeals challenging the same judgment.
The auction purchaser having become absolute owner of the property, there was numberoccasion to pay any companyversion charge.
The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding these two appeals are 2.1 One Shri Trilochan Singh Rana purchased Plot No.14, Block A 2, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi measuring 725 sq.
E 444, Greater Kailash, Part II, New Delhi, together with undivided.
The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 26.09.2013 had allowed the writ petition and the demand of Rs.1,43,90,348/ raised by the DDA vide demand letter dated 28.04.2000 was set aside being illegal and also directed the DDA to return the amount of Rs.3,45,729/ , which had been deposited by the writ petitioner towards the companyversion charges with interest.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner , the appellant writ petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.1,08,05,000/ .
The Delhi Development Authority as well as M s. Karamdeep Finance Investment I Pvt.
