( 1 ) THE appellant DDA aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge dated 4th March, 1999 has preferred this appeal before this Court with the request that the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside. The learned Single Judge in view of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in Mrs. Vijaya C. Gursahaney vs. Delhi Development Authority , reported in 1994 II AD Delhi 770 allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner (respondent herein) has got a valid will, and probate having been issued by a competent Court the respondent cannot claim and demand unearned increase. He further submitted that the grant letters of administration of the will is final and binding. The respondent (appellant herein) could not go contrary to the settled law and claim and demand 50% unearned increase for mutating the property in favour of the petitioner (respondent herein ).

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are recapitulated as under:- the DDA had alloted the plot bearing No. E-7, East of Kailash, New Delhi to Sh. Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Shib Dayal. A perpetual lease deed of the plot executed between Jaswant Singh and the President of India under the Government Grant Act with regard to the aforesaid residential plot. On 20. 6. 1983 the original allottee Jaswant Singh died. On 19. 6. 1983 late Jaswant Singh is stated to have executed a will dated 19. 6. 1983 inter alia bequeathing the said plot in favour of Dr. K. K. Srivastava and Others. The respondent filed a Probate No. 119/84. The respondent was granted Letters of Administration under Section 290 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the learned District Judge. On 23rd September, 1988 respondent made a request for mutation of plot No. E-7, East of Kailash, New Delhi in his favour. It is admitted in the Probate that the deceased allottee was not related, in any manner, to the respondent. The appellant DDA asked respondent to pay 50% unearned increase as per terms of perpetual lease deed since the transfer was not in favour of blood relation of Jaswant Singh. The respondent aggrieved by that order, filed a Writ Petition (CWP No. 1779/97) for quashing the letter dated 13. 8. 1986 by which he was asked to pay 50% unearned increase.

( 3 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in mrs. Vijaya C. Gursahaney vs. Delhi Development Authority , reported in 1994 II AD Delhi 770 come to the conclusion that the decision of the appellant requiring the respondent to pay unearned increase and interest thereon is not legal and their communication dated 19. 6. 1992 and 17. 9. 1992 have no validity in law and are set aside. In this judgment the Division Bench has also commented on the policies of the DDA and observed that DDA cannot broad base its inquiry as per the policy decision extracted in that judgment, after the will has been mutated and the Letter of Administration has been granted.

( 4 ) THE judgment of this Court has been challenged before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court by the judgment dated 26. 8. 2003 passed in delhi Development Authority vs. Vijaya C. gurshaney (Mrs.), reported in (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 301 set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and in para 7 observed that DDA on 26. 7. 1988 with the approval of the Lt. Governor of Delhi formulated a policy and issued guidelines to be followed with regard to payment of 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the land inter alia on the basis of the will left by the deceased allottee. The guidelines are set out and we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same hereunder:

(1)CERTIFIED copy of will left by the allottee; (2)death certificate of the allottee; (3)affidavit disclosing the particulars of the legal heirs whom the allottee had survived; (4)no-objection of the legal heirs regarding mutation of the interest of the deceased in favour of the legatee (s); (5)affidavit from the legattee declaring that the property in questi