Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Dr Vikram Hingorani & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Durga Shanker Mishra & Ors. - Respondents
CONT.CAS(C) 341 of 2021, Civil Writ Petition No. 7452 of 2019, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 28784, 34193, 37083 of 2021, 2355, 10675, 12783 of 2022, Review Petition No. 49, 66 of 2022
Decided On : 11-04-2022
Mutation - Property Dispute - [Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, Section 33] - The court directed the mutation/substitution of the leasehold rights in favor of the Petitioners in accordance with the final decree of partition dated 24th April, 2008. The L&DO was directed to execute the lease deed without any further objections, in terms of the memorandum dated 24th August, 2021, along with the Corrigendum dated 7th September, 2021, within eight weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose over the property bearing No.13, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The Petitioners sought mutation, substitution of leasehold rights, and withdrawal of re-entry order, while the L&DO insisted on the payment of outstanding government dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decree of partition and consequent possession of the Petitioners had attained finality, and directed the mutation/substitution of leasehold rights in their favor. The L&DO was instructed to execute the lease deed without further objections.
Issues: Dispute over mutation, substitution of leasehold rights, and payment of outstanding government dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the final decree of partition and directed the L&DO to execute the lease deed in favor of the Petitioners in accordance with the memorandum and corrigendum issued by the L&DO.
Final Decision: The court directed the L&DO to execute the lease deed in favor of the Petitioners within eight weeks, and disposed of all pending applications, review petitions, and the contempt petition.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present review petitions being Review Pet.66/2022 and Review Pet.49/2022, as also the contempt petition, have been filed seeking implementation of the order dated 27th January, 2021 and recall of the corrigendum order dated 16th December, 2021 to order dated 14th 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, 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;'
5. Vide order dated 27th 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 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 p
AI
The court upheld the final decree of partition and directed the execution of the lease deed in favor of the Petitioners, emphasizing the finality of the decree and the L&DO's obligation to comply wit....
The court established that parties cannot be held responsible for dues not attributable to them when determining property rights and executing leases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutation of leasehold rights should be carried out in accordance with the final partition decree, and parties are bound by the terms of the Se....
The court held that the mutation of property must be executed according to the final decree of partition without imposing charges from unrelated parties, protecting the rights of the petitioners.
Immovable property transfers require a registered deed; agreements to sell or related documents do not confer title and cannot be used for property mutation.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
An appellate revenue authority, in the interest of justice, may pass consequential directions regarding land mutation to align revenue records with a binding, pre-existing, and unchallenged partition....
Mutation does not confer or extinguish title and is based on possession for revenue purposes. The decree in a civil suit may not necessarily relate to the land in question for the purpose of mutation....
There is a right in favour of a co-owner to perfect his title in respect of a property jointly owned by him and therefore, seek conversion from leasehold to freehold and nutation of the property.
A landowner's right to mutate property based on a registered sale deed cannot be legally denied without lawful acquisition or evidence of ownership disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
