Sh. Rajan Bery v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: (a) Reduce the valuation of the property No.B-67, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi- 110028 as done by the concerned SDM, Delhi Cantt. to 50% as per the Clause 5(a) of sub para 3 of the lease deed, and not the petitioner / applicant to deposit the court fee upon the reduced valuation of the property. 2019:DHC:6287 (b) Pass such other Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner / applicant that this Court vide order dated May 06, 2019 has granted Letters of Administration annexed with Will dated September 16, 2003 of Late Baikunth Nath Bery in favour of the petitioner on filing of requisite Court fee and bonds by the petitioner.

3. As per the valuation given by the SDM, Delhi Cantt. with regard to valuation of property No.B-67, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028 admeasuring 1210 Sq. Yds., the same has been calculated on the basis of circle rate of the area i.e. @ prevalent in the area for selling the land, in the year of filing the petition i.e. 2011.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the land underneath the property being No.B-67, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028 is on the perpetual lease from Delhi Development Authority and the Sub para 3 of clause 5(a) of registered lease deed reads as under: “Provided further that, in the event of the consent being given, the Lessor may impose such terms and conditions as he thinks fit and the Lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase in the value (i.e. the difference between the premium paid and the market value) of the industrial plot at the time o sale, transfer, assignment or parting with the possession, the amount to be recovered being fifty percent of the unearned increase and the decision of the Lessor in respect of the market value shall be final and binding.”

5. It is the case of the petitioner and contended so by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the registered perpetual lease deed, Delhi Development Authority, which is the land owning authority, is entitled to 50% of the unearned increase in value of industrial plot, if sale permission of property with land is granted. As such, valuation done by the concerned SDM on the circle rate of the year 2011 is incorrect, on the face of it, as it should be 50% of the valuation of land calculated by the SDM, Delhi Cantt., for payment of Court Fee in the present proceedings.

6. In this regard, it is her submission that the petitioner is only entitle to pay the deficit Court Fee upon reduced value of the property. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Commissioner of Wealth Tax, New Delhi v. P.N. Sikand,

(ii) New Delhi Municipal Committee v. M/s Gymkhana Club

(iii) Dr. Balbir Singh and Others. v. M/s. M.C.D. and Others,

7. I have considered the submissions so made, I deem it appropriate to issue notice to the SDM, Delhi Cantt. and the Standing Counsel of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, returnable on January 20, 2020.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

NOVEMBER 25, 2019