( 1 ) THIS writ petition pertains to leases of Nazul land in favour of individuals. These lands, prior to 1947, were leased out to individuals by the Governor-General-in-Council and, after 1947, the leases were executed in the name of the President of India. The lands fall under the control of the Land and Development Office (Landdo) (respondent No. 2 herein ).

( 2 ) THE lease-hold rights in these lands stood transferred to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest. The relationships between these petitioners and the Union of India (respondent No. 1), including the Landdo (respondent No. 2) are governed by the terms and conditions of the perpetual leases. The question in the present petition relates to the charge of damages by the Landdo from the petitioners (leaseholders) in respect of alleged breaches committed by them by indulging in alleged unauthorised construction.

( 3 ) THE prayers, as originally made in the petition, were as under:-

"a) grant a writ, direction or order in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from recovering/levying damages on the properties of the petitioners without any authority of law; b) grant a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disclose the principle/basis on which such damages are levied; c) to declare that the respondents cannot impose penalty under the garb of regularisation charges; d) declare that the power to demand share in the unearned increase on transfer of lease hold rights is bad, arbitrary and illegal; e) costs be awarded for petitioners. "

( 4 ) HOWEVER, in the course of the arguments, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the question of grant of permission for transfer of the said lease-hold rights and the question of demand of unearned increase on such transfer was not being pressed by them and that the petition was limited only to the issue of recovery of damages by the respondents from the petitioners in respect of the alleged breaches of the terms of the leases.

( 5 ) MOREOVER, out of the 17 petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 is an association formed by the owners/lessees of residential plots in the colonies of Golf Links and Jor Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner No. 1 by itself does not own any lease-hold rights in any plot in the said colonies. Therefore, to that extent, the petitioner No. 1, by itself, does not have any direct interest in the petition and is merely a representative body of the various lease-holders of residential plots. Insofar as the other 16 petitioners are concerned, as indicated by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, some of them have already converted their lease-hold rights into free-hold ownership of their respective plots. The petitioner Nos 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are now free-hold owners of their respective plots and are, therefore, no longer interested in the present writ petition. This leaves us with petitioner Nos 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14 and 17. However, out of these seven petitioners, only the case of the petitioner No. 17 was argued before me with some particularity. Although, it was mentioned in passing that the arguments were also made on behalf of the other six remaining petitioners, yet no specific arguments were addressed on their behalf, nor were their specific leases alluded to. Even the written submissions handed in by the parties were only with reference to the facts of the case of the petitioner No. 17. However, if what is decided hereby applies to the other six petitioners, they would also be governed by it to the extent applicable.

( 6 ) AT this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner No. 17 moved an application for amendment of the writ petition. In the application seeking amendment, it was stated that the petitioner No. 17 was the lessee of the residential plot bearing No. 17, Block No. 1, known as 11 A, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. This property was originally leased out to Mrs C