Full Judgment Text
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7452/2019
DR. VIKRAM HINGORANI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani and Ms. Meghna
Sharma, Advocates. (M:9810006829)
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC for R-1.
(M:9312224805)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
O R D E R
% 21.04.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is an application filed by the Petitioners seeking correction of
th
typographical error in the previous order dated 11 April, 2022. It is
submitted that the words “legal heir” has been incorrectly placed in
paragraph 14 of the said order, instead of paragraph 13 thereof.
Accordingly, the order dated 11th April, 2022 stands corrected as follows:
The said paragraphs now read as under:
Existing Paras 13 & 14
13……the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 6 shall be
the undivided owners of their respective share in the
subject property…
14. In respect of any disputes that may exist between the
Petitioners and the Respondent 3 & 4 or their legal heirs ,
the same is not the subject matter of the present writ
petition or the contempt petition.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
Corrections in Paras 13 & 14
“13……the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 6 /his legal
heir shall be the undivided owners of their respective
share in the subject property…
14. In respect of any disputes that may exist between the
Petitioners and the Respondent 3 & 4, the same is not the
subject matter of the present writ petition or the contempt
petition.”
th
3. Let the order dated 11 April, 2022 reflecting the above corrections,
be printed and uploaded as a corrigendum. CM APPL. 19357/2022 is
disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 21, 2022
dj/ad
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
$~1(SB) & 2 (SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
[Corrigendum as per order dated 21 April, 2022]
th
Date of Decision: 11 April, 2022
+ CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & CM APPLs. 28784/2021, 34193/2021
& 37083/2021
DR VIKRAM HINGORANI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani and Ms. Meghna
Sharma, Advocates. (M:9810006829)
versus
MR. DURGA SHANKER MISHRA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.
Devesh Dubey, Advocate for L&DO.
2(SB) WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7452/2019& CM APPL. 2355/2022, 10675/2022,
12783/2022, REVIEW PET.49/2022, REVIEW PET. 66/2022
DR. VIKRAM HINGORANI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani and Ms. Meghna
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr.
Devesh Dubey, Advocate for R-1 &
2. (M:9312224805)
Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate for
Review Applicants/R-3 & 4.
(M:9999021461)
Mr. Subhash Chand, Advocate for
applicant in REVIEW PET.66/2022.
(M:9868426305)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
2. The present review petitions being Review Pet.66/2022 and Review
Pet.49/2022 , as also the contempt petition, have been filed seeking
th
implementation of the order dated 27 January, 2021 and recall of the
th th
corrigendum order dated 16 December, 2021 to order dated 14 December,
2021. The same have been filed by the Land & Development Office
( hereinafter, “L&DO” ) and other Respondents/their successors-in-interest.
3. The dispute arose out of the Property bearing No.13, Main Road,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi ( hereinafter, “suit property” ). The case of the
Petitioners is that they, jointly along with the Respondent No.6-Mohan
Hingorani, are owners to the extent of 50% in respect of the the said
property. The other 50% is owned by the Respondent No.3- Mr. Gautam
Tahilramani & Respondent No.4 –Mr. Gul @ George R Tahilramani.
4. The prayers, which were sought in the present writ petition, were as
under:
“ (a) issue appropriate Writ, Direction and Order
setting aside/quashing the Rejection Letter for
Mutation No. L&DO/PS3/62952/389 dated
03.05.2019 issued by Deputy Land &Development
Officer rejecting the mutation application of the
Petitioners in respect of their share in Property No.
13, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi;
(b) issue an appropriate Writ, Direction and Order
setting aside/quashing the Mutation-cum-Substitution
letter No. L&DO/PS-III/195 dated 02.02.2005
pertaining the lease hold rights in respect of Property
No. 13, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi in
the names of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4;
(c) issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to mutate/substitute such lease
hold rights in respect of Property No.13, Main Road,
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi in favour of the
Petitioners in terms of the final decree of partition
dated 24.04.2008 with Exhibit C 1 passed by the
Court of Shri N K Sharma, A.D.J., Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi in Suit No. 364/2004;
(d) issue a Writ of Prohibition restraining the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and all persons claiming
under them from acting on the Mutation-cum-
Substitution letter No. L&DO/PS-III/195 dated
02.02.2005;
(e) issue a Direction to the Respondent No. 5 to pay
the misuse or other charges for breach of lease deed
terms, if any, levied by the Respondent No, 1 and 2;
(f) award costs of this Petition to the Petitioners; ”
th
5. Vide order dated 27 January, 2021, after hearing all the parties
including the L&DO, the following order was passed by this Court:
“ 9. Mr. Manish Mohan, ld. CGSC appears for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The stand
taken by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the L&DO is
that the mutation would be effected insofar as
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, only once the
outstanding Government dues are paid by them. The
relevant portions of the affidavit of the L&DO is set
out below:
“9. That a letter dated 04.06.2012 was received
from Sh. G.T. Ramani wherein they have stated
that no space is occupied by any company for
commercial use, only ING Vysya Bank is
operating on the ground floor and also stated that
all the construction has been made as per plan
approved by MCD. They have also requested to
inspect the premises and ready to pay the charges
for withdrawal of re-entry. However, no
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
Sanctioned Building Plan/ any other documents
were furnished by the Respondent No. 3 & 4.
Therefore, terms for withdrawal of re-entry could
not be offered to them, and withdrawal of re-entry
order to Respondent No. 3 & 4 could be issued
only on the recovery of all outstanding
Government dues from Respondent No. 3 & 4 and
Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, no communication
was received from Respondent No. 3 & 4.
xxx
11. That thereafter, inspection notice was issued
on 14.01.2019 for inspection of the premises on
21.01.2019. In response, Respondent No. 3
requested for another date. Another notice was
issued on 24.01.2019 for inspection of the
premises on 04.02.2019. Technical team of this
office visited the site on 04.02.2019 and found the
breaches of unauthorized construction. Breach
notice was issued on 12.03.2019 to the
Respondent No. 3 & 4. However, as per
procedure of this Office, conversion / mutation /
substitution or any request of the Respondent No.
3 & 4 can be taken up / considered only after the
withdrawal of re-entry qua them and withdrawal
of re-entry can be done only on the recovery of all
outstanding Government dues from Respondent
No. 3, 4 & 5. Thereafter, mutation application of
the Petitioners was rejected on 03.05.2019.
12. That as per policy and procedure of the
Answering Respondent, until the re-entry is
withdrawn qua Respondent No. 3 & 4, no action
for conversion / mutation at their request can be
taken up, and re-entry can be withdrawn only
after recovery of all outstanding Government dues
from Respondent No. 3 to 5. As per High Court
order dated 03.03.2006, the Hon'ble Court
directed the Respondent No. 5 to appear before
Sh. A. Bhattacharya on 08.03.2006 who would
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
proceed after that at his convenience. Hearing
was provided and the Bank stated that they would
submit documents including Sanctioned Building
Plan. But the documents have never been
submitted in the office of Answering Respondent.
Further, although the Respondent No. 3 & 4
submitted their compromise to pay the charges
but no Sanctioned Building Plan / documents have
ever been submitted by them.
13. That the re-entry order dated 06.02.2006 was
issued to the Respondent No. 3 & 4 and not to the
Bank as the Bank was not a recorded lessee. The
bank filed the writ petition and the Hon'ble Court
disposed of the writ vide order dated 03.03.2006
directing the Land and Development Office (Mr.
A.R. Bhattacharya, Deputy Land and
Development Officer) to give a personal hearing
to the Bank on 08.03.2006 and proceed thereafter
at his convenience and also stated in the order
that re-entry order stood withdrawn. It is
understood that the re-entry order stands
withdrawn against the Bank who filed the writ for
the relief regarding re-entry order but re-entry
order was issued to the Respondent No. 3 & 4
only and not, to the Bank by the Answering
Respondent. Hence, no action of withdrawal of re-
entry was taken by the Answering Respondent qua
the Respondent No. 3 & 4 with respect to their
portion of the property. Therefore, the re-entry
order issued to the Respondent No. 3 & 4 still
stand qua their portion of the property still stands
and can be withdrawn only on recovery of all the
outstanding Government dues from Respondent
No. 3 to 5.
xxx
V. That in this regard, the reply as stated in paras
8, 13 and 14 of the Preliminary Objections may
be referred for reply to this para. It is also stated
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
that the property stands re-entered which means
the rights and title of the Respondent No. 3 & 4 in
the property, have been suspended.”
10. A perusal of the above affidavit shows,
therefore, that there are no charges which are being
imposed upon the Petitioners or Respondent No.6. Ld.
counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - Mr.
Santosh Kumar takes the position that since, under the
deed of partition, the ground floor falls in the share of
the Petitioners, the conversion/misuser charges should
be paid by them. He further relies upon the letter of the
st
MCD dated 21 October, 1999, as per which misuser
charges to the tune of Rs.2,24,784/- would be liable to
be paid. It is his submission, therefore, that since the
ground floor falls in the share of the Petitioners, they
should bear the misuser/conversion charges. Dr. Aman
Hingorani, ld. counsel, however, submits that the stand
of the bank is that it has paid the conversion/ misuser
charges.
11. Insofar as the present petition is concerned,
the decree of partition and consequent possession of
the Petitioners, has attained finality in view of the
order of the Supreme Court. The shares of the various
parties have also been determined. Clauses (i) and (j)
of the Settlement make it clear that the parties are free
to seek mutation/substitution in their names as also
conversion from leasehold to freehold, without any
further NOC from the other parties. As per the affidavit
of the L&DO, the only claim of the L&DO is in respect
of the Government dues from Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
As per Dr. Aman Hingorani, ld. counsel, there are no
dues being claimed qua the Petitioners in the counter
affidavit. The stand of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in
respect of their own charges for mutation in their name
is not the subject matter of the present writ petition.
Respondent Nos.3 and 4, if they wish to get any
mutation done, would have to take steps in accordance
with law with the L&DO. Needless to add, the long
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
drawn litigation due to the collaboration agreement
and the bank being put in possession has caused
sufficient frustration and difficulties to the Petitioners
and Respondent No.6. The Petitioners cannot be made
to bear the brunt of the conduct of Respondent Nos.3
and 4 or their predecessor/s in any manner
whatsoever.
12. The stand of the L&DO being quite clear,
there is no impediment in directing the mutation to be
carried out in favour of Petitioners No.1 to 6 and
Respondent No.6 in terms of the final partition decree
th
dated 24 April, 2008. Admittedly, the Petitioners have
th
been put in possession only on 8 December, 2018,
following the judgment of the Supreme Court pursuant
to which the Local Commissioner ultimately took
possession of the suit property. Thus, the Petitioners
cannot be made to pay any misuser charges for which
they are not responsible. Insofar as conversion charges
from leasehold to freehold are concerned, if any of the
said charges fall in the share of the Petitioners, they
would be liable to pay the same, in terms of the
settlement.
13. In view of the above, Respondent Nos.1 and 2
are directed to mutate/ substitute the lease hold rights
in the suit property bearing No.13, Main Road, West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi, in favour of the Petitioners in
th
terms of the final decree of partition dated 24 April,
2008 (with Exhibit C1).
14. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall not create any
impediment whatsoever in the mutation and
substitution taking place in favour of the Petitioners. If
there are any misuser charges which are liable to be
paid, in terms of the counter affidavit filed by the
L&DO, it is free to proceed as per its counter affidavit,
in accordance with law. In terms of clause (j) of the
Settlement, parties are free to alienate or sell their
respective shares in the suit property/portions of the
suit property so partitioned by metes or bounds. All
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
parties shall be bound by the terms of the Settlement
and shall adhere to the same.”
6. Thereafter, on an application filed by the Respondent Nos.3 & 4
informing the Court that, though the mutation has been carried out, the
L&DO is not executing the lease deed in favour of the Petitioners, the
th th
corrigendum order dated 16 December, 2021 to order dated 14 December,
2021, was passed. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:
“7. The apprehension on behalf of the Petitioners is that
the L&DO has taken the position in an application
seeking recall of the said order that the parties can
jointly apply once the dues are paid. It has been clarified
by this Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment dated 27th
January, 2021 that the Petitioners cannot be made to pay
any misuser charges which they are not
liable to pay.
8. In view thereof, nothing can hold back the execution
of the lease deed in favour of the Petitioners. If the
Review Applicants i.e., Respondent Nos.3 & 4 have any
disputes with the L&DO, they are free to avail their
legal remedies, in accordance with law .”
7. Now, further applications have been filed seeking recall of the order
th
dated 16 December, 2021. The stand of the L&DO is that the sub-division
of the plot is not permissible. It has already carried out the mutation in
favour of the Petitioners. However, the lease deed cannot be directed to be
executed as the same has to be executed as a composite whole for the entire
property.
8. The stand of the other Respondents is that the Petitioners are not
entitled to 50% share in the suit property and in any event, since the policy
of the government is not to sub-divide, the lease deeds cannot be executed.
9. The stand of the Petitioners is that the directions of this Court, vide
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
th th
orders dated 27 January, 2021 and corrigendum order dated 16 December,
2021, are clear to the effect that the mutation/substitution of the lease hold
rights has to take place in favour of the Petitioners, in terms of the final
th
decree of partition dated 24 April, 2008.
10. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties. It is clear that there are disputes in
respect of charges which are allegedly payable by Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in
respect of the suit property to the L&DO. It is this issue that is causing the
dispute between the parties and the L&DO is refusing to execute the lease
deeds in favour of the Petitioners and Respondent No.6 due to the same.
th
11. In the opinion of this Court, the order dated 27 January, 2021 is quite
clear and so is the stand of the L&DO in the affidavit filed before this Court.
The right of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.6 in respect of the final
th
partition decree dated 24 April, 2008 is not in dispute. A Local
Commissioner was also appointed to take possession of the said share of the
Petitioners and the Respondent No.6 in the suit property.
th th
12. Vide letter dated 24 August, 2021 and corrigendum thereto dated 7
September, 2021, the L&DO has issued a memorandum to the following
effect:
“ MEMORANDUM
In superannuation of this office substitution letter No.
L&DO/P-II95 dated 02.02.2005 and Court Order
dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Court on
decree of Partition dated 24.04.2008 in respect of
above said property the mutation of the property has
been carried out. On the same terms and conditions
laid down in the lease deed executed on 06.09.1956 by
the original lessee as follows:-
1. Dr. Vikaram Hingorani, Ms Anita Bhawnani and
th
Late 1/6 Jointly undivided share. Sabhawal
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
2. Dr. Aman Hingorani, Dr. Shweta Hingorani, and
th
Priya 1/6 Jointly Undivided share Hingorani.
3. Sh. Mohan Hingorani.
4. Mr. Gul @ George R. Tahillramani and Sh.
Gautam 1/2th Undivided share Tahilramani.
2. The property now stand in the books of this office
in the names of Dr. Vikaram Hingorani Ms. Anita
Bhawnani, Ms. Lata Sabhawal, Dr. Aman Hingorani,
Dr. Shweta Hingorani. Ms. Priya Hingorani, Sh.
Mohan Hingorani, Mr. Gui @· George R,
Tahilramani and Sh. Gautam Tahilraman Jointly .
3. Sub-division of the Property will not be allowed at
any stage.
4. You are also liable to pay government dues i.e.
misuse/damages charges etc, which is being intimated
to you vide letter No.L&DO/PSIII/319 dated
24/08/2021
5. However, if it is found subsequently that certain
facts have not been brought to the notice of govt. or the
facts have been misrepresented, the Government
reserves the rights to review the matter suo-moto.”
th
Corrigendum Dated 7 September, 2021
“ Sub: Corrigendum of mutation of lease hold rights
in respect of property No. BP-13, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
CORRIGENDUM
In partial modification of this office letter
NO.L&DO/PS-III/ dated 24.08.2021 the names of Co-
lessees and Para 4 may be read as under:-
“Dr. Vikram Hingorani, Ms. Lata Sabharwal and
Priya Hingorani instead of Dr. Vikaram
Hingorani, Ms. Lata Sabhawal and Priyah
Hingorani”.
“As per Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:26.04.2022
16:39:23
27.01.2021 Mr. Gul @ George R. Tahilramani and
Sh. Gautam Tahilramani are liable to pay
government dues i.e. misuse/damages charges etc.
which is being intimated to them vide letter
No.L&DO/PS-III/362 dated 07.09.2021.
The other names of co-lessee, terms and conditions
of mutation letter dated 24.8.2021 will remain the
same.””
13. In the above memorandum, the L&DO notes that the sub-division of
the suit property is not to be permitted at any stage. However, considering
the fact that the memorandum had already been issued in terms of the lease
th
deed executed on 6 September, 1956 in favour of the Petitioners and the
Respondent No.6, as set out above in the memorandum, read along with the
corrigendum, there cannot be any impediment in issuing the lease deed in
favour of the said parties, so long as the lease deed clearly mentions that the
Petitioners and the Respondent No.6 / his legal heir shall be the undivided
owners of their respective share in the subject property. It is now directed
that the L&DO shall execute the lease deed without any further objections,
th
in terms of the memorandum dated 24 August, 2021 along with the
th
Corrigendum dated 7 September, 2021, within eight weeks.
14. In respect of any disputes that may exist between the Petitioners and
the Respondent Nos.3 & 4, the same is not the subject matter of the present
writ petition or the contempt petition.
15. The parties are free to avail of their remedies, in accordance with law.
16. Accordingly, all pending applications, review petitions and the
contempt petition, are disposed of in the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
APRIL 11, 2022/ dk/ad
CONT.CAS(C) 341/2021 & W.P.(C) 7452/2019 Page 11 of 11