The court established that parties cannot be held responsible for dues not attributable to them when determining property rights and executing leases.

Headnote:(A) Relevant laws include the principles of equity and property law. The court discussed the entitlement of the petitioners to mutation based on a final decree of partition.

(B) The legal principle that parties cannot be made to pay for breaches they did not commit was emphasized.

(C) The facts reveal ownership disputes over property and a mutation application rejection.

(D) Main issues included the clarity of the partition decree and the validity of property charges. (E) The court found the petitioners should not bear the consequences of others’ actions and ordered mutation in their favor. (F) The court’s directive was for the L&DO to execute the lease deed as per the partition decree, without objections. (G) Parties involved included petitioners, various respondents concerning property rights and ownership. (H) There were no dissenting opinions expressed in the judgment.

Table of Content
1. details of property ownership and claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. l&do's stance on lease deed execution. (Para 6 , 8)
3. increase of liability on petitioners for misuse charges. (Para 10)
4. petitioners entitled to mutation rights as per partition. (Para 11 , 12)
5. final directive for lease deed execution. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. 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 outsta