Alka Gupta vs. U.T. Chandigarh And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Alka Gupta, sought the transfer of leasehold rights for an industrial plot in Chandigarh. Initially, she was asked to deposit Rs. 24,81,419/- as unearned increase and Rs. 4,46,655/- as GST. The petitioner contended that the unearned increase was wrongly calculated based on the property value in 2007, instead of 1998 when an agreement to sell was executed. The Chief Administrator, vide an order dated 22.07.2022, set aside the demand and remanded the matter to the Estate Officer for re-examination. Nearly two years later, with no order passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Subsequently, the respondent Administration re-worked the demand, requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 4,00,194/- as unearned increase and Rs. 72,035/- as GST, which the petitioner deposited on 11.07.2024. The Administration also informed the petitioner to issue a public notice for the transfer of leasehold rights.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's first prayer regarding the demand for unearned increase and GST was rendered infructuous as the petitioner had deposited the revised amounts of Rs. 4,00,194/- and Rs. 72,035/- respectively on 11.07.2024. Regarding the transfer of leasehold rights, the respondent Administration informed the Court that the petitioner had been directed to issue a public notice in leading newspapers as per specified norms. Upon submission of proof of publication and after a 30-day period for objections, and if no objections are received, the Administration would proceed to transfer the rights. In light of these developments and statements made by counsel for both parties, the Court found that no substantive issues remained to be adjudicated. The petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition if the necessary orders were not passed by the Chandigarh Administration despite compliance with all formalities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for unearned increase should be calculated based on the property value in 1998 (when the agreement to sell was executed) or 2007 (when the sale deed was registered), as per the relevant provisions governing the transfer of leasehold rights in industrial plots in Chandigarh? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the unearned increase should be calculated based on the property value in 1998, as the agreement to sell was executed and concluded in that year. She relied on the Collector's order dated 24.04.2007, which held that stamp duty should be calculated on the value prevalent in 1998. The petitioner further contended that the initial demand was erroneous and that the Estate Officer had failed to pass a reasoned order despite the remand by the Chief Administrator in July 2022. Respondent's arguments: The respondent Administration initially demanded the unearned increase and GST. Later, after the remand, they re-worked the demand and informed the petitioner of the revised amounts. They also stated that the process for transferring leasehold rights was initiated by requiring the petitioner to issue a public notice.