DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VIJAYA C GURSHANEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995 has been preferred against the judgment dated 10-5-1994 passed by the High Court in C. W. P. No. 3696 of 1992 and Civil Appeal No. 5424 of 1999 is preferred against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dated 1-4-1998 passed in Revision Petition No. 933 of 1997. Since the facts of both the appeals are identical, we are taking the facts from Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1995.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal arises under the following circumstances :- One Ram Dhan (since deceased) had purchased a plot No. D-3, Community Centre, Narayana, in the public auction held by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter the DDA) on 25-5-1969. The perpetual lease deed of the plot was executed between Ram Dhan and the President of India on 17-2-1972. On 18-9-1978, Ram Dhan died without any construction on the plot. The respondent herein- Mrs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney, seems to have applied for grant of Letters of Administration to the District Judge, Delhi, on the strength of a Will, said to have been executed by Ram Dhan on 26-10-1977 in her favour. It appears that the District Judge granted Letters of Administration on 7-5-1980. Thereafter, the respondent had applied to DDA for substitution of her name in place of deceased Ram Dhan. DDA issued show cause notice for non-construction on plot within the specified time, which was replied by the respondent by her letter dated 11-12-1982 requesting DSA for mutation of her name in place of Ram Dhan on the strength of the alleged Will, whereupon DDA asked the respondent to produce the relevant documents for the further consideration. DDA by its letter dated 12-8-1985 asked the respondent to pay 50% of unearned increase as per terms and conditions stipulated in the perpetual lease deed as the transfer was not in favour of blood relation of Ram Dhan, whereupon the respondent seems to have agreed to pay 50% of unearned increase to DDA. DDA, thereafter, by its letter dated 19-6-1992 asked the respondent to pay Rs. 6,51,020/- towards 50% of unearned increase in the value of property. By another letter dated 17-9-1992, DDA demanded payment of the aforesaid amount failing which would result in cancellation of the lease. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two letters, the respondent filed a Writ Petition, inter-alia, for quashing of the aforesaid letters. The respondent further sought a direction that the plot be transferred in her name without payment of any unearned increase and that the mutation be made in the records of DDA. Alternatively, the respondent prayed that in case the respondent is liable to pay 50% of unearned increase it should be calculated on the basis of the value or the rate of land prevalent as on 13-5-1980 when the respondent applied for transfer of the leasehold rights of the plot in her favour. The High Court, on hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that since the petitioner (respondent herein) had obtained the letters of administration in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the question as to what considerations prevailed upon the deceased Ram Dhan to bequeath his plot to the respondent herein is irrelevant. The High Court was of the view that the moment the Administrator grants Letters of Administration on the basis of a Will the respondent is entitled to all the rights the deceased had vested in him at the time of his death. The High Court further held that the grant of Letters of Administration is a judgment in-rem and a conclusive proof of the existence and genuineness of the Will and its effect cannot be nullified except by proceedings for revocation of the Letters of Administration.

(3.) Parties are heard at length. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned ASG appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in C. A. No. 34 of 1995 and Mr. P. N. Ramalingam, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent in C. A. 5424 of 1999.