NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3894  OF 2019

(Arising from SLP (C) No.26111/2015)

Gurdev Singh and others ..Appellants

Versus

Union of India and others ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment  and order  dated  13.05.2015 passed  by the  Division

Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed in Letters

1

Patent Appeal No. 282 of 2010, by which the Division Bench of

the  High  Court  has  allowed the said appeal preferred  by the

respondents herein – Union of India and others and has quashed

and  set  aside the judgment  and  order  passed  by the learned

Single  Judge of the  High Court, the  heirs  of the  original  writ

petitioner have preferred the present appeal.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are

as under:

That the father and predecessor­in­interest of the

appellants – Hem Singh was a migrant from Pakistan and was

registered as a ‘displaced person’. That the claims to the

properties left  behind  by the  said  Hem Singh and his  wife in

Pakistan  were verified and assessed in the year  1951.   That

Displaced Persons (Compensation  &  Rehabilitation) Act, 1954

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Rules made

thereunder in the year 1955 came into force to compensate and

rehabilitate the  displaced  persons  who  had  migrated to India

from Pakistan on account of partition of the country in the year

1947.   That the property in question was offered for transfer to

the said  Hem  Singh in the year 1985 for a consideration of

2

Rs.26,01,846/­ on the then prevailing market value as per Rule

24.   

3.1 Feeling aggrieved by the said valuation, the said Hem Singh

challenged the same in appeal before the Settlement

Commissioner under Section 22 of the Act.   At this stage, it is

required to be noted that the challenge was only with respect to

valuation.   The said appeal came to be dismissed solely on the

ground that the appeal had become infructuous because the offer

had lapsed on account of  not having been accepted within 30

days of its receipt by the said Hem Singh.   Against the order of

the Settlement commissioner, Hem Singh preferred revision

petition  under  Section  24 of the  Act,  which  also came to be

dismissed.  A further revision at the instance of Hem Singh also

came to be dismissed.

3.2 That the aggrieved Hem Singh moved the High Court

by way of Writ Petition No. 1684 of 1994.  Before the High Court

also, the main argument of the original writ petitioner was that

the rates prevailing in the year 1955, when the Rules came into

force, should apply.   Thus, before the High Court also, the

challenge  was with respect to the  valuation.  Before the  High

3

Court, the challenge to the valuation  was given up and the

original writ petitioner agreed to pay the amount, as determined

by the authority, i.e., Rs.26,01,846/­.   However, as by the time

number of years had elapsed, the learned Single Judge proceeded

on equitable terms by holding that on the writ petitioner’s paying

to the department the price quoted in the year 1985, along with

interest @ 10% per annum from 1.4.1985 till the date of

payment, sale deed in his favour be executed and consequently

disposed of the said writ petition by judgment and order dated

14.07.2009 and directed that on payment of the price quoted in

the year 1985 along with interest at the rate of 10%  per annum

from 1.4.1985 till the date of payment, the plot in question shall

be sold to the original writ petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.07.2009

passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition no.

1684/1994, the Union of India and others preferred LPA before

the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.  By the impugned

judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has

allowed the said appeal preferred  by the  Union of India and

4

others and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order

passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court, the heirs of the original writ petitioner (the original writ

petitioner died during the pendency of the appeal before the High

Court) have preferred the present appeal.

6. We have heard Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Chirag

M. Shroff, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Govt. of NCT

of Delhi.

6.1 Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted

that as such the entitlement of the land in question by the said

Hem Singh under the Act as a displaced person cannot be

disputed as the authority itself in the year 1985 allotted the land

in question in favour of Hem Singh.  It is submitted that however,

at the relevant time, the father of the appellants was aggrieved by

the valuation and the price determined in the order of allotment

passed in the  year  1985.   It is submitted that thereafter the

5

litigation with respect to valuation at the instance of Hem Singh

came to be continued.   However, ultimately, before the learned

Single Judge of the High Court, the allottee – Hem Singh given up

his challenge to the valuation and accepted and agreed to pay the

price fixed in the year 1985.   It is submitted that therefore the

dispute with respect to valuation came to an end.  It is submitted

that, however, as in the meantime number of years have elapsed,

the learned Single Judge of the High Court considered the matter

on equity and rightly directed the original writ petitioner to pay

the price as  mentioned in the order of 1985, together with

interest @ 10% per annum.  It is submitted that the original writ

petitioner deposited Rs. 89 lakhs with the High Court, amount as

determined pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single

Judge.   It is submitted that the said amount deposited on

25.08.2010, by now, has come to Rs.1.41 crores.   Shri Jayant

Bhushan, learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on  behalf  of the

appellants has stated at the Bar that looking to the objections

raised on  behalf of the respondents  herein, raised  before the

Division Bench of the High Court, the appellants are ready and

willing to pay some further reasonable amount.

6

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

and the fact that the entitlement of the plot in question to the

original allottee – Hem Singh cannot be disputed and that the

authority itself allotted the land in the year 1985 to Hem Singh

on a consideration of Rs.26,01,846/­ and on certain other terms

and  conditions  and  considering the  principal grievance  of the

respondents herein – original appellants before the Division

Bench of the High Court that the learned Single Judge erred in

directing the respondents herein in the year 2009­10 to sell the

immovable property to the original writ petitioner at a price at

which the original  writ petitioner had 25 years prior thereto

offered to sell the said property though together with interest @

10% per annum, but without regard to the fact that the market

price of the property in the year 2009­10 and which alone was

the criteria under the Rules under which the property was offered

to be sold to the original writ petitioner, was far far more than the

price prevalent, 25 years earlier in the year 1985 together with

simple interest thereon @ 10% per annum, we called upon the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties to

file an affidavit regarding the valuation of the said property as on

today.

7

8. Pursuant to the same, an additional affidavit along

with fresh valuation has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4

& 5 – Government of NCT of Delhi.   According to the valuation

report annexed with the additional affidavit, the total value of the

property in question comes to Rs.6,14,79,533/­, as under:

Sr. No. Description Remarks 1 Category ‘E’ 2 Total Plot Area 272.09 Sq. Mtrs. 3 Total Plinth Area Ground Floor =

272.09 Sq. Mtrs. First Floor = 222.74 Sq. Mtrs. Total = 494.83 Sq. Mtrs.

4 User Factor Commercial (3) 5 Structure Factor (Pacca) Pacca (1) 6 Year of Construction 1983 7 Age Factor 0.80 8 Cost of Land Rs.70,080/­ per sq.

mtr 9 Building Floors Ground and First 10 Cost  of  Land  (land rate  per

Sq. Mtrs. X use factor x area) =272.09x3x70,080 =Rs.5,72,04,201.6/­ (A)

11 Cost of Construction =10,800/­ per sq. mtr. 12 Minimum cost of

construction = (Cost of construction, per sq. mtrs. X plinth area x age factor)

=10,800x494.83x0.80 =Rs.42,75,331.20/­ (B)

13 Total Value = (A + B) =Rs.6,14,79,533/­ (Round Off)

8

8.1 Shri  Jayant  Bhushan, learned Senior  Advocate  appearing

on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there is an

arithmetical error in calculating the cost of the land.   It is

submitted that the total plot area is 222 Sq. Mtrs. and in the

valuation report it is wrongly considered as 272.09 Sq. Mtrs.  It is

submitted that therefore to that extent the cost of the  land is

required to be reduced.   It is further submitted by Shri Jayant

Bhushan, learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on  behalf  of the

appellants that the valuation report contains  Rs.42,75,331.20

towards minimum cost of construction.  It is submitted that the

aforesaid is too exorbitant/high.  It is submitted that in any case

the appellants would be demolishing the entire structure.  He has

stated at the Bar that the appellants are ready and willing to pay

any further amount, as may be directed by this Court.

9. Though the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Govt. of

NCT of Delhi has tried to resist the aforesaid offer, we are of the

opinion that if the appellants  are  directed to  pay some  more

reasonable  amount  considering the fact that  number  of years

have passed and even the price of the land has also increased, it

would meet the ends of justice.   At the same time, to direct the

9

appellants to pay the present market value/market price would

also be unreasonable.   Therefore, taking into over all facts and

circumstances of the case,  we are of the opinion that if the

appellants are directed to pay Rs.3,66,30,000/­ towards the cost

of the land and Rs.20,00,000/­ towards the cost of construction

of the existing  building, it  will  meet the ends of justice.  As

observed hereinabove, the appellants have deposited Rs.89 lakhs

in the Registry of the High Court on 25.08.2010.   It is reported

that now the aforesaid amount with interest comes to Rs.1.41

crores.   Therefore, the appellants are required to pay the

aforesaid determined amount minus Rs.1.41 crores.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court by directing that on the

appellants depositing a total sum of Rs.3,86,30,000/­  minus

Rs.1.41 crores with the authority, within a period of four weeks

from today, the respondents­authority shall sell the property in

question in favour of the appellants and handover the possession

to  them.  If  any expenditure  is to  be  incurred towards stamp

duty/registration fee etc., the same shall be paid by the

10

appellants.   The respondents­authority shall be permitted to

withdraw the amount of Rs.89 lakhs deposited by the appellants,

lying in the High Court, along with accrued interest thereon.

11. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

No costs.

…………………………………..J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. APRIL 12, 2019. [M.R. SHAH]

11