The lease of land admeasuring 207 sq. yards, bearing No. 3/13, Industrial Area, Kirti Chowk, Gandhinagar, was granted by the competent authority to Amarpal Singh vide Lease Deed dated 31st December, 2010, for a term of 9

The lease of land admeasuring 207 sq. yards, bearing No. 3/13, Industrial Area, Kirti Chowk, Gandhinagar, was granted by the competent authority to Amarpal Singh vide Lease Deed dated 31st December, 2010, for a term of 99 years. Clause (b) supra of the Lease Deed of the land aforesaid, requires the lessee to obtain approval from Land & Development Officer (L&DO) before any 'assignment or transfer' of the leased premises. Clause (c) supra of the Lease Deed entitled the appellants L&DO to claim and recover unearned increase at the time of 'transfer' subsequent to the first 'transfer'. In 2012, the lessee Amarpal Singh transferred the leasehold rights in the said property to M/s Mahalaxmi Saw Mills, a partnership firm ('MSM'). The constitution of the said MSM changed from time to time but no intimation thereof was given to the appellants L&DO; as on 7th May, 1986, there were 7 partners in the partnership firm. The aforesaid seven partners of MSM, on 26th August, 2020, got incorporated as Mahalaxmi Pvt Ltd, the respondent Company, and transferred the business, assets and liabilities of partnership firm MSM to the respondent Company, at their net book value and became shareholders of respondent Company in proportion of their shares in the partnership firm. The respondent Company thereafter applied to the appellants L&DO, for mutation of the leasehold rights in the land aforesaid, from the name of MSM to the name of the respondent Company. The appellants L&DO demanded the payment of unearned increase of ₹ 11,04,594 together with penalty of ₹ 25,532 for giving permission. The respondent Company challenged the demand under a writ petition and the Single Judge, relying on Vali Pattabhirama Rao v. Sri Ramanuja Ginning and Rice Factory (P) Ltd. AIR 1984 AP 176, had allowed the writ petition of the respondent Company by quashing the demand for unearned increase and by directing the appellants L&DO to mutate/record the leasehold rights in the property from the name of the partnership firm to the name of the respondent Company. Based on the facts as above, answer the following: Whether the unearned increase demand of L&DO to Mahalaxmi Company is tenable ?