The judgment establishes the recognition of power of attorney transactions in property conversion and clarifies the application of policy clauses and circulars in such transactions.

( 1 )

( 2 ) AT the request of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has impugned the letter dated 3. 8. 99 issued by respondent No. 2 making a demand of rs. 11,08,948/- along with interest w. e. f. November, 1988 on account of unearned increase in respect of the property bearing No. S-99, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.

( 4 ) ONE Sh. S K Aggarwal was allotted the plot in october, 1971 and he executed a special power of attorney in favour of Sh. V R Vaish father of the present petitioner on 24. 1. 73. The property was constructed upon by Sh. V R Vaish. On 25. 11. 1988 Sh. S K aggarwal executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner stated to be on account of love and affection for the petitioner being the maternal uncle of the petitioner. Other documents including the indemnity bond and affidavit were also executed by the said Sh. S K Aggarwal in favour of the petitioner and necessary approvals were obtained from RBI since S K aggarwal was an NRI. The petitioner sought transfer of the said plot in his name and the cooperative society issued a no objection certificate dated 20. 7 89 The communication however, continued between the petitioner and respondent, no. 2 in respect of the mutation of the property in the name of. the petitioner.

( 5 ) ON 14. 2. 92 policy guidelines were issued for conversion of lease hold properties into free hold this policy was made not only for the original allottees and perpetual lessees but also for general power of attorney holders though an additional surcharge of 33. 3% was imposed in case of property transferred on power of attorney basis.

( 6 ) ON 22. 3. 96 Sh. V R Vaish made a request to complete the necessary mutation formalities for transfer of property in the name of the petitioner but further documents were asked for. On 24. 6. 1997 the petitioner submitted an application for conversion into free hold along with the sum of Rs. 2,41,0807- which amount was accepted by respondent No. 2. Thereafter a request was made for conversion of lease hold property. into free hold property but the conversion did not take place- The petitioner also made a request, on 14. 12. 98 to the Lt. Governor, respondent No. 3. when the matter was considered the issue apparently raised was whether the gift can be one of the modes of transfer of property. Finally instead of taking a decision in favour of the petitioner the impugned letter dated 3. 8. 1999 was issued making the demand of Rs. 11,08,9487- on account of 50% unearned increase along with interest. The petitioner made representations against the same but to no avail.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact on 26. 5. 1999 a clarification was sought from the Ministry of Urban Development in respect of cases where conversion to free hold on the basis of registered gift deed made in favour of the persons falling outside the definition of family members has been sought and it was desired that the conversion policy should include such gift deeds as valid instruments for allowing conversion of property to free hold. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner was considered as would be apparent from the document note filed as annexure P-36 alongwith the said letter. It is noted in the said document note that in the particular case the gift deed was executed by a person holding a power of attorney. It is further stated in the said note that the lessor s approval for allowing conversion into free hold in this particular case was obtained on 22. 2. 1998 and it was noted that the matter was placed before the Lt. Governor and it has been decided to amend the conversion policy so as to include cases of gift subject to other conditions as applicable in the cases of general power of attorney being satisfied. Thus learned counsel contends that the case of the petitioner in any case is one which has to be covered under the policy of power of attorney transactions.

( 8