TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated May 18, 1987, passed by the Appropriate Authority under section 26900(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus vested in the Central Government. The said property was put to auction by the Chief Commissioner on July 21, 1987, and the petitioner was the highest bidder which bid was accepted by the competent authority. Possession of the property was thereafter delivered to the petitioner and a sale deed dated January 9, 1988, was executed by the President of India in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner requested respondent No.2, DDA for mutation of the property in question and vide letter dated August 9, 1988, the petitioner was intimated the amount of the unearned increase amounting to Rs. 2,19,848.57 which had not been paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncrease against property No.7 A/75, WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The parawise information as asked for is as follows: 1. Clause l(vii) of the lease deed provides that the lessee has to first obtain the consent of the lessor for any sub-division or parting the possession of the property. 2. On the basis of the abovesaid provision of the lease deed, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the claim of the authority to charge unearned increase in the case of DDA v. Official Liquidator, setting aside the judgment of the High Court, Calcutta, on April 4, 2001. A copy of the above judgment is enclosed for reference. Accordingly, the DDA has recovered the demanded amount of unearned increase in respect of property No. 4/13A, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 269UE of the Act that the first respondent authority had a limited role to playas the property vests with the Central Government in terms of the agreement for transfer in terms of sub-section (1) of the said section and in terms of sub-section (5), it has been made clear that nothing in this section would operate to discharge the transferor or any other person (not being the Central Government) from liability in respect of any encumbrances on the property and such liability is to be enforced against the transferor. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Sub-section (1) of the said section itself makes it clear that the property has to vest in the Central Government in terms of the agreement for trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
