Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) CERTIORARI for quashing letter dated 23.10.2017 (Annexure P/2 at page No. 43) bearing No.F6A (19) 651LSB (I)I4207, issued by Assistant Director LSB (I) of Respondent I DDA cancelling/Revoking Mutation carried out earlier in favour of Petitioner, his sister Smt. Sneh Avlash and Legal Heirs of KUMAR VATS Signing Date:20.08.2024 20:39:12 Deceased Sister Smt. Raksha Arora in respect of Plot No. B-87, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.

(iii) MANDAMUS directing, commanding and requiring the Respondent 1 DDA for restoring mutation dated 29.12.2008 in favour of Petitioner, his sister Smt. Sneh Avlash and Legal Heirs of Deceased Sister Smt. Raksha Arora in respect of Plot No.B-87, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi as per Preliminary Decree dated 8.2.1996 and Final Decree dated 27.4.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suit bearing CS (OS) No. 687 of 1993."

11. It is stated that on the basis of the said final decree of partition dated 27.04.2006, the petitioner, along with Smt. Sneh Avlash and the legal heirs of Late Smt. Raksha Arora applied to the Respondent No.1/DDA for mutation of the subject property in their favour. Accordingly, vide letter dated 29.12.2008 issued by the Respondent No.1/DDA, it was communicated to them that the subject property has been successfully mutated in the favour of the petitioner herein, Smt. Sneh Avlash and the legal heirs of Late Smt. Raksha Arora.

KUMAR VATS Signing Date:20.08.2024 20:39:12 LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT THE BAR

15. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the subject property was leased out to a sole proprietorship firm, namely M/s Ram Parkash Kanwal Kishore by the DDA, and continued to remain the same in the books of Respondent No.1/DDA till the mutation dated 29.12.2008, as evidenced by the Lease Deed dated 25.09.1967 as well as internal notings in the concerned record of Respondent No.1/DDA dated 29.06.1978. It is urged that the relinquishment deed dated 15.03.2016 purported to be executed by Smt. Kiran Arora (mother of Respondent No.2 and widow of Sh. Chand Kiran)allegedly executed by Sh. Chand Kiran, on the basis of which the Respondent No.1/DDA has cancelled the mutation of the petitioner, cannot be accorded any weight over the legality and executability of the decrees of partition dated 08.02.1996 and 27.04.2006 on the strength of which the mutation was allowed in the favour of the petitioner. It is contended that the will of Sh. Chand Kiran or forgery thereof has no bearing upon the title of the subject property as the rights over the subject property flow from another will i.e., of Sh. Ram Parkash (father of Sh. Chand Kiran). It is further contended that the issues among the family of Sh. Ram Parkash stood settled much before the mutation got effected. Heavy reliance has also been placed on Compromise decree dated 07.03.1980 by way of which the legal heirs of Sh. Chand Kiran were paid a settlement amount in lieu of their purported share in the partnership firm M/s Ram Parkash Kanwal Kishore and neither Respondent No.2 nor his sister or mother have any right, title or interest left in the subject KUMAR VATS Signing Date:20.08.2024 20:39:12 property or the partnership firm. It is further urged that the position taken by the Respondent No.1/DDA is erroneous because the DDA was impleaded as a party to the partition suit between the parties herein, in which the decrees of partition dated 08.02.1996 and 27.04.2006 were passed by this Court.