( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the legal heirs of the erstwhile allottee of a plot of land in kashmiri Cooperative House Building Society numbered as plot No. 7, Block A, Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. The petitioners have challenged the demand raised by the respondent/dda for payment of unearned increase of rs. 41,06,904/- and Rs. 33,26,592/- as interest thereon for the period 29th September, 1993 till March, 1998.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case as averred by the petitioners through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate are as follows:-

(A) The petitioner had sold a plot in question to m/s Matangee Consultants Pvt. Ltd. This transaction has led to the cancellation of the lease of the petitioners by the respondent. (b) On 23rd June, 1995, a circular was issued by the respondent stating that where a lessee/sub-lessee has applied for sale permission and the DDA had conveyed the unearned increase but the same had not been paid, the conversion could be allowed by treating the earlier application for sale permission as infructuous/withdrawn. (c) In December, 1999, a scheme was issued by the respondent for conversion of leasehold properties in delhi to free hold and clause 13 of the said scheme clearly stated that a surcharge of 33. 1/3% on the conversion fee will be payable over and above the normal conversion charges and no unearned increase will be recoverable. (d) The applications for conversion had been made by the petitioners on 23rd December, 1999, 5th March, 2000, 19th October, 2000, 24th May, 2001 and 25th August, 2001. (e) However, on 16th December, 2002, the respondent sent a letter of demand seeking a sum of Rs. 41,06,904. 00 as unearned increase and Rs. 33,26,592. 00 as interest thereon with respect to the property in question. (f) In reply dated 30th December, 2002, the respondents were made aware of the relevant provisions of the circular issued by the respondent in respect of the unearned increase and conversion of properties from leasehold to free hold. (g) Inspite of the above letter of the petitioners, the respondent by letter dated 4th July, 2003 called upon the petitioner to pay the impugned amount of unearned increase plus interest thereon failing which action was to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioners have sought to rely upon the following decision of the respondent dated 22nd September, 2003:- a. In cases where after issue of the sale permission the sale deed has not been executed and the party, i. e. lessee or allottee applies for conversion, the evidence of continued possession of the lessee in the property should be looked into and request for conversion in favour of the allottee/lessee should be allowed. In such cases refund of the amount of unearned increase should also be given. b. In cases where the property has been re-entered on account of benami transactions or transactions without permission of the lessor and the party i. e. the general power of attorney applies for conversion after paying the conversion charges plus surcharge as applicable under the scheme, conversion to freehold should be allowed without insisting on payment of unearned increase and on recovery of charges for withdrawal of re-entry as prescribed by the lease administering authority other than payment of unearned increase. (h) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that the demand raised by the respondent consequently was illegal as it is contrary to the policy of the respondent as after issue of sale permission, the evidence of continued possession of the lessee in the property was to be looked into and request for conversion in favour of the allottee/lessee should be allowed. In such cases refund of the unearned increase should also be given. (i) It is further submitted that even though the lease of the petitioner has been determined, the plot in question has not been entered into by the respondent and the possession thereof still vested with the petitioners through th