Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ravinder Nath Sahni Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Ravinder Nath Sahni vs Delhi Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 22, 1991
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/698138

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Writ Appeal No. 3095 of 1990 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 4649 and 4872 of 1990
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Property
Acts & sections
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ravinder Nath Sahni

Advocate Rajiv Nayar,; Jayant Bhushan and D.K. Thakur, Advs

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority

Legal References

Acts
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
Reported In
45(1991)DLT226

Excerpt

- .....was completed.(3) as the petitioner is already in possession of the house, in ouropinion, the petitioner has to be put to terms because he cannot be allowed to continue enjoying the fruits of the transaction without paying, what we, primafade, feel is payable.(4) there was no requirement to file the income tax clearance certificate obtained under section 230-a because this requirement was not spelled out in the application form itself. nevertheless the application form did require the attaching of the clearance obtained under the urban land(ceiling and regulation) act. this was done only on 3/04/1987. thereforee, prima facie, the value of the land as on 3rd april, 1987 had to be taken into consideration in working out the un-earned increase. taking these factors into consideration, the un-earned increase would come to rs. 18,91,062.00.the petitioner has already deposited in court rs. 8,65,000.00. the balance amount due to the dda. apart from interest claimed by it is rs. 10,26,062.as a condition of stay, we direct the petitioner to pay within two months from today to the dda, a sum of rs. 10,26,062. the total amount so deposited shall come to rs. 18,91,062.(5) in addition to the above, in order to secure the interests of the respondent completely, the petitioner should also furnish a bank guaranteeing the sum of rs. 3,40,391 being the claim of the dda towards interest.(6) indian administrative service stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Full Judgment

B.N. Kirpal J.

(1) RULE.CMS 4649 and 4872/90

(2) Vide order dated 11/10/1990, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,65,000.00 and the demand of the Dda was to remainstayed. We find that the demand of the Dda is for a sum of Rs. 22,31,453.00.According to the Dda, its demand consists of Rs. 18,91,062 on account of50% un-earned increase and Rs. 3.40.391.00 being the interest @ 18% perannum. According to the Dda, the seller did not file a complete application for permission to sell because No Objection Certificate under the Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was not attached. This certificate was filed only on 3/04/1987 and it is thereupon that the application becamecomplete. Because the Income-Tax clearance certificate was filed in 1988, that is why the Dda is seeking to charge interest of Rs. 3,40,391.00. The 50% unearned increase of Rs. 18,91,062.00has been worked out on the basis of the price of land as on 3/04/1987, the date the application was completed.

(3) As the petitioner is already in possession of the house, in ouropinion, the petitioner has to be put to terms because he cannot be allowed to continue enjoying the fruits of the transaction without paying, what we, primafade, feel is payable.

(4) There was no requirement to file the Income Tax Clearance Certificate obtained under Section 230-A because this requirement was not spelled out in the application form itself. Nevertheless the application form did require the attaching of the clearance obtained under the Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act. This was done only on 3/04/1987. thereforee, prima facie, the value of the land as on 3rd April, 1987 had to be taken into consideration in working out the un-earned increase. Taking these factors into consideration, the un-earned increase would come to Rs. 18,91,062.00.The petitioner has already deposited in Court Rs. 8,65,000.00. The balance amount due to the DDA. apart from interest claimed by it is Rs. 10,26,062.As a condition of stay, we direct the petitioner to pay within two months from today to the Dda, a sum of Rs. 10,26,062. The total amount so deposited shall come to Rs. 18,91,062.

(5) In addition to the above, in order to secure the interests of the respondent completely, the petitioner should also furnish a bank guaranteeing the sum of Rs. 3,40,391 being the claim of the Dda towards interest.

(6) Indian Administrative Service stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial