WPC NO.5703-04/2006 Page 1 29 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5703/2006 TARUN KHOSLA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr.S.K.Rungta, Ms.Pratiti Rungta, advocates. versus UOI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Gaurav Duggal, advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 15.05.2009 1. By Sale Deed dated 29th September, 1999, the petitioners became owners of the leasehold rights in the property bearing no. 3/9A, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property, for short). Their request for mutation of the property has been rejected by the lessor-Land & Building Department Office (L&DO) by letter dated 29th October, 2005 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 2. L&DO is the lessor and had initially executed a Lease Deed dated 13th February, 1985 in favour of Mr.Chaman Lal Talwar and Mr.Madan Lal Khosla. Mr. Chaman Lal Talwar and Mr.Madan Lal WPC NO.5703-04/2006 Page 2 Khosla “transferred” the said property to Mr.Amir Chand Khosla, father of the petitioners, by executing a General Power of Attorney, affidavit, Agreement to Sell, receipt, etc. It is not disputed that the petitioner is in possession of the property since 1999 and that petitioner’s father, Mr.Amir Chand Khosla was in possession of the property since 1985 till 1999. The factum that the Sale Deed dated 29th September, 1999 was executed in favour of the petitioners by his father Mr.Amir Chand Khosla is not denied by the respondent-L&DO. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner and before them, their father, Mr.Amir Chand Khosla have been paying ground rent since 1985 and the original receipts are also available with them. He further states that they have been paying house tax since 1985 and the original receipts are with them and can be verified by the L&DO from the Office of the MCD. 3. The Deputy Land & Development Officer by the impugned letter dated 29th October, 2005 rejected the request of mutation on the ground that the petitioners had not furnished the documents/clarification demanded vide letter dated 14th July, 2003 and as reminded by letter dated 28th April, 2004. Letter dated 14th July, 2003 required the petitioners to submit a registered General Power of Attorney or certified copy of the registered General Power WPC NO.5703-04/2006 Page 3 of Attorney executed by the original lessees, namely Mr. Chaman Lal Talwar and Mr.Madan Lal Khosla. It is the case of the petitioners that the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of their father- Mr.Amit Chand Khosla in 1985 is not registered, thus the petitioners cannot furnish a registered General Power of Attorney or certified copy thereof. Petitioners claim benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as the fact that even after lapse of 12 years, the original Lessees have not taken any steps or legal proceedings to recover the property from the petitioner or their predecessor in interest, Mr.Amir Chand Khosla. 4. The factum that the petitioners have registered sale deed in their favour is not disputed. In these circumstances, I do not think insistence of a registered General Power of Attorney is necessary or required. A sale deed transfers the property. The said transaction is complete. The sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioners in 1999. They are legal owners of the property since then. Further the petitioners or their predecessors claim to be in possession of the property since 1985. Respondents can satisfy themselves on the factum that the petitioners or their predecessors in interest, Mr. Amir Chand Khosla have been in possession of the property since 1985 and examine the documents that will be submitted by the petitioners WPC NO.5703-04/2006 Page 4 in support thereof. Respondents are also at liberty to obtain indemnity bond, etc. to ensure that they are not put to risk by claims of third parties. It is not the case of the respondent L&DO that any third party has raised any dispute or made a claim in respect of the property. 5. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 29th October, 2005 is quashed and set aside. Petitioners will appear before the respondents with requisite documents on 11th June, 2009 at 3.00 p.m. Respondents will examine the said documents and pass necessary orders within two months from the said date. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will also apply for conversion of the leasehold rights into freehold. If any such application is made, the same will be considered in accordance with law. The petitioners are at liberty to ventilate their grievance in case they are denied conversion. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. DASTI. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 15, 2009 P