TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh Sahni S/o Sh. Jai Singh acquired rights in immovable property bearing plot No. 18 Block No. C(C) Kalkaji, New Delhi, measuring 866 square yards from the Central Government through the Settlement Commissioner, Government Built Property, New Delhi vide auction held on December 4 1955. A lease deed dated August 6, 1959, was executed between the President of India and Surjit Singh Sahni and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on August 19, 1959. For the purpose of the present petition the relevant clauses of the lease deed are extracted and reproduced as under : (b) The lessee shall before any assignment or transfer of the said premises hereby demised or any part thereof obtain from the lessor approval in writing of the said assignment or transfer and all such assignees and transferees and the heirs of the lessee shall be bound by all the convenants and conditions herein contained and be answerable in all respects therefor. (c) The lessee can transfer the land after obtaining the permission of the lessor aforesaid and the lessor will not share any unearned increment in the value of the land being the difference in the premium paid by him to the lessor and the market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment under section 269UE(2) of the Act. whereupon the Central Government made a payment of Rs. 39 lakhs to Surinder Singh Sahni. The said property so having vested in the Central Government was put to public auction. Clause 14 of the terms and conditions of transfers read as under : "14. Unearned increased, if any, will be paid by the Department and ground rent of 21/2 per cent. will be paid by the purchaser." The petitioner was the highest bidder and was declared the purchaser having paid a sum of Rs. 55,11,000. The entire consideration amount was paid and sale deed was registered on behalf of the President of India in favour of the petitioner. Peaceful possession of the aforesaid property was also delivered to the petitioner. A sale deed was duly executed and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar as document No. 3031 in additional book No. 1 volume No. 6373 at pages 149-152 on April 5 1989 transferring by way of sale all its right title and interes in the said property to the petitioner. The relevant terms of the sale deed are reproduced as under : "This sale deed is made on 5th day of April, one thousand nine hundred eighty nine between the President of India th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e auction purchaser as follows : (i) The aforesaid property shall thus vest in the auction purchaser and the vendor is left with no right, title or interest therein. (ii) The vendor has already paid to the transferor the full amount of consideration payable in accordance with the provisions of section 269UE of the said Act and no litigation or dispute of any nature whatsoever is pending in respect of the said property as to the quantum of apparent consideration payable to the transferor. (iii) It is further agreed that this deed conveys unto the auction purchaser all the estate rights, title, interest of the said vendor in, or upon the said property." The petitioner applied for mutation of the said property in its favour to the Land and Development Officer in 1998 as the plans submitted by them for sanction for construction were not being passed. For almost two years no step was taken by the Land and Development Officer to mutate the property in the favour of the auction purchaser. The petitioner moved the High Court by way of a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 1741 of 1990 seeking directions that the property be mutated in its favour. During the pendency of the writ petition t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi, in relation to the charges payable to the Land and Development Officer in respect of the property ordered to be purchased by the Central Government under section 269UD(1) of the Act on November 6 1987. In respect of the property the subject-matter of the petition it was stated as under : "1. C(C)/18 Kalkaji A sum of Rs. 90 is due on account of nominal ground rent at Rs. 9 per annum with effect from January 15, 1978, to January 14, 1989. This will be treated as first sale. However, in case of second sale 50 per cent. unearned increase will be chargeable." At the time when the property was acquired by the Central Government, under section 269UE of the Income-tax Act the property vested in the Central Government by virtue of the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. The owner of the property was holding this plot under a lease executed by the President of India. The owner entered into an agreement to sell the leasehold rights. After the Chapter XX-C proceedings the property was sold through public auction and clause 14 of the terms and conditions enjoined upon the Department to pay the unearned increase and ground rent of 21/2 per cent. to be paid by the auct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondents. It was contended that what was sold to the petitioner after its acquisition from the original lessee were the leasehold rights in the property. The vendor (Central Government / President) had only leasehold title upon the leased premises and therefore could not pass to the buyer a title better than what he himself had or conversely the buyer could not get a title better than what the seller had. It was further contended that the petitioners were aware that what they had purchased were leasehold rights and therefore approached respondent No. 2 for carrying out mutation of the said premises in their favour. The action of respondent No. 2 in claiming enhanced ground rent at the rate of Rs. 72,409 per annum was in accordance with the terms of the lease deed dated August 6 1959 which is a contract and any action flowing from the contract was not open to the challenge by way of the writ petition. From a reading of the relevant clauses of the sale deed which have been extracted and reproduced with emphasis in para. 6 (pages 100-102) above it is clear that the sale of the property in question was made by the President of India by a registered sale deed and all right ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... restrictions conditions and limitations contained in the grant are valid and shall take effect according to their tenor. The grant of property by the Government partakes of the nature of the law since it over-rides even legal documents which are contrary to the tenor of the grant documents. On acquisition of the property under the Income-tax Act the leasehold rights vested in the Central Government. At this stage the President of India being the paramount/supreme owner was also in possession of the leasehold rights. The property in question was sold by the Central Government/President of India absolutely and fully and completely to the petitioner with all right title and interest by way of registered sale deed dated April 5 1989. The President of India being the owner of the property in his discretion made an absolute sale of the property and has subsequent to April 5 1989 ceased to be the owner of the property. The contents of the sale deed executed by the President of India in favour of the petitioner bear testimony to what was intended to be sold by the President / Central Government. What has to be construed is the document of sale executed by the President of India in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
