DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MRS. VIJAYA C. GURSHANEY AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 26-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
MRS. VIJA YA C. GURSHANEY AND ANR. 
AUGUST 26, 2003 
B 
[S.N. VARIA VA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Succession Act, 1925-Letter of Administration--Grant of by testamentary 
Court-Scope of-Held: Grant of letter of administration does not confer title 
C to the property but merely enables administration of estate of the deceased-
Further the Testamentary Court is only concerned with the question whether 
the testator executed testamentary instrument of his free Will. 
Delhi Development Act, 1975-Allottee of the plot transferring leasehold 
rights in favour of non-blood relative-Grant of Letter of Administration to 
D transferee-DDA demanding 50% unearned increase in value of proper'ty in 
terms of lease deed-Writ petition by transferee-Dismissal by High Court-
On appeal held, policy with regard to payment of 50% unearned increase in 
value of property is to curb illegal transactions in favour of persons who are 
not blood relatives of allottee-Grant of Letter of Administration does not 
preclude DDA from enquiring whether Will is actually a sale in the garb of 
E Will since testamentary court can find out whether testator executed it of his 
free Will-Also transferee not complying with the conditions stipulated in the 
lease agreement-Hence DDA competent to charge 50% unearned increase in 
value of property. 
Allottee of a plot died without making any construction thereon. He 
F had transferred the leasehold rights of the plot in favour of respondent a 
non-blood relative by virtue of his Will. Respondent applied for grant of 
Letter of Administration. District Judge granted the same on the basis of 
the Will. Respondent then applied to ODA for substitution of her name 
in place of deceased. ODA issued letter to the respondent asking .to pay 
G 50% unearned increase in value of property as per the terms and 
conditions stipulated in the perpetual lease deed as transfer was not in 
favour of blood relative of the allotte.e. It again demanded the payment 
stating that non-payment would result in cancellation of the lease. 
Respondent then filed a writ petition. High Court held that the moment 
the Letter of Administration is granted on basis of the Will, the respondent 
H 
1010 
f 
D.D.A. v. VIJA YA C. GURSHANEY 
IOI I 
is entitled to all the rights the deceased had vested in him at the time of A 
his death. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is settled law that a Testamentary Court, whilst 
B 
granting Probate or Letters of Administration does not even consider 
particularly in uncontested matters, the motive behind execution of a 
testamentary instrument. A Testamentary court is only concerned with 
finding out whether or not the testator executed the testamentary 
instrument of his free will. It is settled law that the grant of a Probate or 
Letters of Administration does not confer title to property. They merely C 
enable administration of the estate of the deceased. Thus, it is always open 
to a person to dispute title even though probate or Letters. of 
Administration have been granted. I 1017-D-EJ 
1.2. DDA is a creature of the Statute and any policy decision or 
'1 
guidelines formulated by such authority will have a binding effect on the D 
parties, in the absence of rules to the contrary. The rationale behind the 
formulation of policies and guidelines issued by DDA is to curb illegal 
transactions in favour of persons not of blood relations of the allottee, 
being practised rampantly and the property being transferred by an under 
hand sale in the grab of Will and power of attorney etc. DDA has E 
formulated a policy that in such cases the department would ask for 50% 
of unearned increase in the value of property. It is always open to DDA 
to inquire whether an alleged Will is in actuality a sale in the garb of Will 
in total disregard of the policy decision of the authority, merely because 
Probate/Letters of Administration are granted would not preclude DDA 
from so inquiring. Thus, the High Court erred in holding that merely F 
because Letters of Administration are granted the appellants cannot 
inquire into the true nature of the transaction. It must be grasped that 
DDA has been given no notice of the testamentary proceedings. Therefore, 
it would have no right to appear or oppose such proceedings. 11018-A-CJ 
1.3. Clauses 4, 5 and 8 of the lease deed, envisage that the lessee G 
\ 
cannot sell, transfer or part with the possession of the 

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