Delhi Develeopment Authority Vs. Gaurav Kukreja
|
Head Note
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 , Article 226
Scheme of conversion from leasehold system of land tenure into freehold, Clause 13 - Conversion of Lease Hold to Free Hold - On the date of filing of the writ petition, the respondent was neither a holder of a power of attorney nor had any subsisting right in the suit property and while so, the High Court was not right in holding that the respondent is entitled to apply for conversion of the property - Dehors the scheme of conversion, the respondent is not entitled to apply for conversion of the property - Respondent does not fall within the ambit of Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme and therefore the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 15
Specific Performance - Lease Hold Property - Necessary Party - In the suit for specific performance filed by respondent and his father, DDA was not made a party to the suit despite the fact that it was within their knowledge that the property is a leasehold property under the control of DDA and cannot be disposed of without obtaining a prior permission from the DDA - In terms of Section 15(a) of the Specific Performance Act 1963, the suit for specific performance can be filed by "any party" to the contract - Suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent and his father who admittedly were not the parties to the agreement to sell - Vendor during the pendency of suit, remained exparte and the suit was decreed in terms of a compromise arrived between the parties, all of whom were family members - Held that suit for specific performance is a collusive suit, where the respondent and his father used the process of the court to get rid of the stamp duty, registration charges and unearned increase payable to DDA.
Topic(s)-