D.D.A. AND ORS. versus JOGINDER S. MONGA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 12-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D.D.A. AND ORS. 
v. 
JOGINDER S. MONGA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 2003 
[ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Delhi Development Act, 1957-Sections 22 and 56-Delhi Develop-
m_ent Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981-Rule 
23-Sale of leasehold property by lessee-Determ(nation of market value 
C for calculation of unearned increase in value payable-Circular Letters · 
issued by Central Government under the Act fixing market value for the 
purpose-State fzxing higher market value on the basis of agreement for 
sale-Correctness of-Held, not correct-Circular letters of the Central 
Government bjnding on the State. 
D 
' 
Respondent No. 1, a legal heir of original sub-lessee of appellant, 
entered into an agreement ~or sale of the aHutted leasehold plot with 
respondents 8 and 9 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,00,000 plus 
50% of the unearned increase in the value of the plot. Respondent No. 
1 made an application before the appellant seeking grant of permission 
E for sale of the leasehold property indicating the sale consideration. The 
appellant included the 50% unearned increase in the sale consideration 
and fixed the market value of the plot at Rs. 7,50,00,000 and demanded 
Rs. 3,62,44,420 for transfer. 
F 
The respondents filed Writ Petitions before High Court challeng-
ing the arbitrary fixation of market value of the plot by the appellant 
contrary to the market value fixed by the Government of India/ 
Lieutenant Governor in Circular letters issued for the purpose of 
determining unearned increase. The High Court allowed the Writ 
G Petitions -of the respondents. 
I 
Meanwhile, the appellant introduced a scheme for conversion of 
leasehold into freehold property. The appellant permitted execution of 
sale deed by payment of conversion charges without payment of 50% 
of the unearned incrt:ase in some cases. The respondents filed an 
H application raising additional pleas before this Court claiming similar 
786 
D.D.A. v. J.S. MONGA 
787 
relief from the appellant which were granted to others. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the benefit 
given to others was a mistake which does not entitle the respondents 
A 
to claim similar benefit under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; 
that the Circular letters of the Government of India fixing market 
value cannot override the statutory sub-lease and hence illegal; that the B 
Circular letter not issued by the Lt. Governor is illegal;. and that the 
subsequent policy decision of the appellant cannot be applied to the 
respondents who have already opted to deposit the demanded amount 
and got the sale deed executed and registered. 
The respondents contended that the respondents stood on a 
common footing with others who were given the _benefit and hence the 
respondents cannot be treated differently; that the Circular letters lay 
down the market value and not the benchmarks; and that any mistake 
c 
on the part of the Deihl Administration had never been pleaded nor D 
urged earlier. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The application of others were not only contempora-
neous but also identical in all other relevant facts. The contention of E 
the respondents has some substance that whereas others have received 
the benefit of the purported new policy of.conversion from lease hold 
to Tree hold, the respondents herein deprived therefrom for no fault 
on their part. (798-F-GJ 
2.1. The authority of the U. Governor, exercised by the Delhi F 
Administration, is a delegated one. The Union of India cannot be said 
to have denuded of its power to issue statutory directions as and when 
necessary or to issue policy decision in terms of the Delhi Development 
Act, 1957 and the Delhi Development Auth~rity (Disposal of Developed 
Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. The power to fix market value is that of the G 
lessor. Whereas the Chief Commissioner has been delegated with the 
power of the lessor, he, in terms of clause X(a)(b) of the deed of sub-
lease, cannot sub-delegate the same to any officer or officers to exercise 
such power. When a market value is fixed in case of a locality by the 
lessor or his delegated authority, the same would be binding on them. H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Although the sub-lease is a statutory one, the Rules provide for suitable 
modification·s. [801-F-HJ 
2.2. Sub-clause (b) of Clause (6) of the deed of sub-lease and the 
proviso appended thereto confers a discretion upon the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.