S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) ISSUE Rule. Mr. Gaurav Duggal, learned counsel waives notice of Rule. With consent of parties, the matter was heard finally. ( 2 ) THE petitioners seek directions against Land and Development Officer (hereafter referred to as 'land DO') for substitution of leasehold rights in their favour. ( 3 ) SH. Jyotirmoy Das was owner of properties bearing No. F-1144, chitranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 as well as 9/6668, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New delhi. He remained single and unmarried during his life time. He drew a Will on 8. 10. 1994 bequeathing all his assets including the said two properties to his adopted son (none other than his nephew i. e. the son of a younger brother, the second petitioner) as well as his sister-in-law. A life interest was created in favour of the first petitioner, the sister-in-law and thereafter the properties devolved in favour of the second petitioner i. e. the adopted son/nephew. The testator (hereafter referred to as 'sh. Das') died on 22. 10. 1996. The petitioners i. e. the legatees approached the District Judge on 24. 10. 1997 claiming probate of the Will. After following due process of law, the Court granted letter of administration in Case No. 328/1997 on 22. 5. 1998. The requisite court fee was paid, according to valuation of the properties; thereafter the petitioners applied for a formal order of mutation in their favour with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi which granted the request. They requested for transfer of leasehold rights in their favour as successors of late sh. Das, to the respondent Landdo. ( 4 ) THE Landdo by its impugned letter dated 12. 3. 2001 demanded an 'unearned increase' of Rs. 6,15,666/- with ground rent from 15. 4. 1993 onwards, 10% interest and certain other charges. The petitioners protested against demand, stating that the property had been validly bequeathed to them and mutated pursuant to orders of the MCD. However, the Landdo unremittingly insisted on payment of amounts computed by it. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the demands of the landdo are unsustainable. It was submitted that the deceased Sh. Das did not have any class-1 heir such as mother, wife or children. In the absence of such heirs, the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, prescribe that succession was to devolve on the other heirs. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the demands of the landdo are unsustainable. It was submitted that the deceased Sh. Das did not have any class-1 heir such as mother, wife or children. In the absence of such heirs, the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, prescribe that succession was to devolve on the other heirs. In this case, the brother i. e. the brother of late sh. Das, i. e. the husband of the first petitioner (and father of the second petitioner) had pre-deceased the lessee. Being the closest natural heirs entitled to succession to his estate, and in whose favour the Will had been executed, they were entitled to claim the rights without paying any un-earned increase. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel urged that the disputes sought to be raised by the respondents is no longer open to debate and several decisions of this Court on the question such as Surinder kumar Bhasin and Anr. vs. DDA, 117 (2005) DLT 200, amit Kumar Singhal and Anr. vs. Delhi Development Authority, 2003 (II) DLT 370, h. R. Vaish vs. Union of India and Ors. , 100 (2001) DLT 546 and Jagdish khandelwal and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. , 91 (2001) DLT 546 have settled the dispute beyond the pale of controversy. He also relied upon the recent decision reported as K. K. Srivastava vs. Delhi Development Authority, 142 (2007)DLT 26. It was contended that the demand of the respondents is unreasonable and cannot be sustained on the face of the decisions of this Court. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents justified the demand for unearned increase computed by the Landdo. It was urged that according to the policy evolved by the Landdo unless the request was by a blood relative such as mother, father, son, daughter, wife etc. (who are immediate relatives), the devolution of estate cannot be recognised for the purpose of transfer of leasehold rights. In this case, even though there is no dispute as to the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased lessee, the fact remains that the former were class-II heirs and fell outside the scope of the policy. Learned counsel contended that the cases cited largely concerned the policies of the DDA concerning payment of unearned increase. In this case, even though there is no dispute as to the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased lessee, the fact remains that the former were class-II heirs and fell outside the scope of the policy. Learned counsel contended that the cases cited largely concerned the policies of the DDA concerning payment of unearned increase. ( 8 ) THE question as to whether the land owning agency DDA or the Land DO being bound by a request or order of the Court was considered by Division Bench of this Court. It had ruled that the land owning agency is bound by the terms of a decree made by competent court and has to transfer the leasehold or other rights on such basis. That ruling was partially set aside by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as DDA vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney, (2003) 7 SCC 301 . The supreme Court held that if the land owning agency entertained doubts as to whether the transaction was genuine or not, it was within its rights to hold an enquiry and determine whether to charge unearned increase or not. ( 9 ) IN this case, the following facts are undisputed: (i)The deceased not being survived by any Class-I heir and having died unmarried; (ii)The present petitioners being the wife and son respectively of the pre-deceased brother; (iii)The petitioners being the legatees of the deceased lessee; (iv)The Will of the lessee,in question having been proved and put to scrutiny; (v)There being no doubt as to genuineness of the Petitioners' claim. ( 10 ) IN the face of these facts, the demand for unearned increase, in my opinion, on a blind application of a policy which dictates that only specified heirs would be recognised and others have to pay unearned increase as a pre-condition for transfer of leasehold rights appears to be utterly unreasonable. ( 11 ) THE personal law of the parties, namely, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs the field. It provides that in the absence of Class-I heirs, class-II heirs would be entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased such as the late Sh. Das. There is no dispute that in this case the petitioners would fall within that description; in any event they are closest heirs whom lessor left behind, they are also legatees who proved the Will in the Court. Das. There is no dispute that in this case the petitioners would fall within that description; in any event they are closest heirs whom lessor left behind, they are also legatees who proved the Will in the Court. The policy, insofar as it does not enable transfer of leasehold rights to such genuine and undisputed successors, exposes itself to glaring inadequacies which are unreasonable. Though an executive body is bound by the terms of its policies, the inadequacies or obvious omissions which conflict with enacted law, cannot be a legitimate ground for denial of application of mind, and proper exercise of discretion, wherever warranted. That, unfortunately has happened in this case. ( 12 ) IN view of the above conclusion, the impugned order cannot be sustained; it is hereby set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to process the petitioners' request for transfer of leasehold rights by excluding from the computation, any element of unearned increase. This exercise shall be completed within 10 weeks from today, the petitioners shall be intimated directly within that period. The petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs.