Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NOS…83-6684 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 8854-8855 of 2010)

 Somnath Chakraborty and Anr.                     … Appellants

VERSUS

Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents

O R D E R  

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  directed  against  a  common  

judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  Calcutta  High  Court  

passed in F.M.A. No.2393 of 2005 and F.M.A. No.2411 of 2005  

dated 08.12.2009.   

3. To briefly narrate the facts, the appeals pertain to a  

piece of land which is as on date in the possession of the first  

Respondent  Appollo  Gleneagles  Hospitals  Ltd.  (hereinafter  

called “Appollo Hospitals”), which was originally owned by one  

Narayan Chandra Dutta. He stated to have sold the said lands  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           1 of 22

Page 2

to  one  Tilak  Sundari  Debi.  Her  title  was  confirmed  after  

prolonged  litigation  in  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  

Calcutta dated 25.07.1986 in Second Appeal No. 384 of 1967.  

When the said litigation was pending, the heirs of late Tilak  

Sunderi Debi sold the said lands to the present Appellants who  

became the joint owners of the land consisting of 11 Katha 10  

chitaks and 25 square feets, in all 11.659 cottah of land.  

4. Be  that  as  it  may,  the  Urban  Land  (Ceiling  &  

Regulation)  Act,  1976 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Act”)  

was brought into effect w.e.f.  17.02.1976. The civil  litigation  

preferred by late Tilak Sundari Debi was resisted by one Orient  

Beverages Ltd. also known as Orient Properties Ltd. claiming  

to have acquired title in respect of the said lands. At the time  

when proceedings under the Act were initiated, the said Orient  

Properties Ltd., pursuant to the notices issued under the said  

Act  agreed  to  surrender  the  lands  which  was  the  subject  

matter of litigation which ultimately came to be notified under  

Section 10(3) of the Act by Notification dated 11.05.1990.  The  

State of West Bengal claimed the said lands as property of the  

State as from 05.05.1990 and the Orient Properties Ltd. stated  

to  have handed over  possession on 28.05.1990.  Thereafter,  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           2 of 22

Page 3

the State handed over the land along with adjacent lands to  

one M/s Janapriya Hospital Corp. Ltd. pursuant to a registered  

lease  deed  for  30  years  with  option  for  renewal  under  the  

lease deed dated 21.06.1991. Based on the said lease deed,  

the  Hospital  paid  a  premium  of  Rs.94,41,300.  Later  on  

Janapriya Hospital Corp. Ltd. became Appollo Gleneagles, the  

first Respondent herein. As per the lease deed the lease is to  

expire on 2021.  Apart from the premium, the lease deed also  

obligated a payment of 10% of the said sum by way of annual  

lease rent.   

5. In July, 1993, the Appellants filed a writ petition being  

C.O.No.8616(W) of 1993 challenging the ultimate Notification  

issued under the Act. An interim order was initially granted by  

the  Learned  Single  Judge  on  12.07.1993  directing  the  

Respondents to maintain status quo. Subsequently,  the Writ  

Petition itself came to be allowed by order dated 02.05.2005.  

Even while the order of status quo was in operation, it appears  

that the first  Respondent made some constructions and the  

Hospital came to be established.

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           3 of 22

Page 4

6. Against  the  judgment  of  the  learned  Single  Judge,  

Appollo  Hospitals  and  the  State  of  West  Bengal  preferred  

separate  appeals  in  F.M.A.  No.2393  of  2005  and  F.M.A.  

No.2411  of  2005.  The  Division  Bench  by  the  judgment  

impugned in these appeals held as under in paragraph 12.1:  

“12.1  The  second  appellate  decree  might  be  binding  only  upon  the  parties  to  the  said  proceedings.   However,  it  is  otherwise  a  judgment  in  rem,  at  least  against  any  person  claiming title derived from the judgment debtor.  Hence,  State  deriving  title  by  way  of  vesting  from Orient was not entitled to deny the right,  title and interest of the respondents in question.”  (underlining is ours)

Again in paragraph 12.2 the Division Bench observed as  

under:

“12.2…….The  title  was  in  dispute.  Hence  the  doctrine of lis pendence would apply. During the  pendency  of  the  second  appeal,  the  present  respondents purchased the interest of the then  owner of the said land in question which was yet  to be adjudicated upon.  They stepped into the  shoes  of  their  predecessor  in  interest.   The  declaration  was  made  in  their  favour  by  the  Division Bench of this Court.  Hence, the State  was obliged to proceed against them under the  provisions of the said Act of 1976.  The learned  Single Judge rightly observed as such and we are  in  full  agreement  with  His  Lordship  on  that  score.” (underlining is ours)

Again in paragraph 12.3 the Division Bench made further  

observations to the following effect:  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           4 of 22

Page 5

“12.3 It is true that the hospital was constructed  by Appollo by spending huge sum. They did it at  their own risk and peril as it was a lease for 30  years  which  is  going  to  expire  in  2021.  The  Hospital  authority  took  that  risk  before  proceeding further.  Hence, the contention made  by Mr. Mitra on that score cannot be accepted.”  

Further  observation  was  made  by  Division  Bench  in  

paragraph 12.4 as under:

“12.4  We  however,  feel  that  although  it  is  a  private hospital it is serving people of the State  giving  medical  services  and  it  would  not  be  proper to stop such activity at this stage. We are  prompted  to  say  so  as  we  also  find  the  respondents  guilty  of  laches.   They  did  not  approach the appropriate authority at the right  moment.   They  should  have  raised  objection  contemporaneously.   However,  such  laches  cannot take away their right to claim appropriate  relief without disturbing the hospital, if possible.”  (underlining is ours)

Ultimately  the  Division  Bench  issued  the  following  direction in paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2. The same are extracted  as under:

“13.1 The order  of  the learned Single Judge is  thus  modified  to  the  extent  that  the  hospital  authority  need  not  hand  over  actual  physical  possession  to  the  State  before  a  final  declaration, if any, is made under Section 10 (3)  considering  the  return  to  be  submitted  by  the  respondents  in terms of  the liberty granted by  His Lordship to them.

13.2 The hospital authority would be obliged to  compensate the respondents to the extent of the  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           5 of 22

Page 6

land, if any allowed to be retained by them, by  the  competent  authority  under  the said  Act  of  1976 and for  the balance part  of  the land the  State would be obliged to pay compensation in  accordance with law.”

7. The abovesaid judgment of the Division Bench is the  

subject matter of challenge in these appeals.

8. When these appeals were moved, while issuing notice,  

this  Court  gave the following directions  in the orders  dated  

27.08.2012 and 05.10.2012:

“In the facts of the case, the concerned learned  District  Collector  at  Mayukh  Bhavan,  2nd Floor,  Salt  Lake,  Kolkata  is  requested to  file  his  own  calculations  taking  into  consideration  the  calculations submitted by the present petitioner  before him.  For his convenience, the petitioner  shall  remain  present  before  him  on  4th  September,  2012.   He  shall  be  heard  and  understood as to what is his grievance and then  final  report  may  be  prepared  and  submitted  before us within four weeks. List the matter in  the first week of October, 2012.”

“Order dated 27th August, 2012 is modified to the  extent  that  the  phrase  “learned  District  Collector”  be  replaced  by  the  “Competent  Authority”  under  the  Urban  Land  (Ceiling  &  Regulation)  Act,  1976.   This  exercise  may  be  done by the learned Competent Authority within  a period of six weeks.  List after eight weeks.”

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           6 of 22

Page 7

9. At this juncture, it will have to be noted that neither  

the first Respondent nor the State of West Bengal have chosen  

to  challenge  the  impugned  judgment  before  this  Court.  

Therefore, the same has become final as against both of them.  

By  virtue  of  this  Court’s  orders  dated  27.08.2012  and  

05.10.2012, the competent authority went into the question as  

to whether the Appellants were in possession of any surplus  

land under the provisions of 1976 Act. An order came to be  

passed by the competent authority on 30.10.2012 by which it  

was declared that the Appellants are not in possession of any  

surplus  land  in  the  agglomerated  area  and,  therefore,  the  

question  of  compensation  to  be  given  by  the  competent  

authority Kolkata under the Act does not arise.   In the light of  

the said order, going by the ultimate direction of the Division  

Bench, it is now for the Appollo Hospitals to bear the entire  

compensation.  In  other  words,  the  Appollo  Hospitals  is  now  

liable to bear the compensation payable for the entire extent  

of the land namely 11.66 cottah (11.659 cottah).  

10. Having regard to the said position and the further fact  

that the land in question is situated in land-locked area, even  

the  Appellants  have  no  option  than  to  accept  the  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           7 of 22

Page 8

compensation for the lands which is in the possession of the  

Appollo  Hospitals  right  from the  year  1991 when  the  lease  

deed came to be entered as between the Appollo Hospitals  

and the State of West Bengal.  Realizing the said position, both  

the parties agreed for fixing the valuation of the lands in order  

to determine the compensation.  By this  Court’s  order dated  

28.01.2013, the consensus ad idem of both the parties for the  

appointment of Class-A Valuer approved by the Calcutta High  

Court who can be directed to determine the value. List of the  

approved  Valuers  was  called  for  and  by  order  dated  

15.03.2013, from the list of Class-A Valuers approved by the  

Calcutta  High  Court,  Mr.  Sandip  Nandi  Majumdar  was  

appointed  as  Valuer  and  he  was  directed  to  associate  the  

competing parties while submitting the report.  

11. Pursuant to the said orders, the Valuer submitted his  

report  sometime in  July,  2013.   Thereafter  the  parties  took  

time to examine the report of the Valuer.  Copies of the report  

were  also  directed to  be furnished to  the parties.  After  the  

submission of the reports, parties filed their statements.  

12. From the above facts, the following factors emerge:

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           8 of 22

Page 9

a. Appellants  are  the  absolute  owners  of  11.66  (11.659)  cottah  lands  situated  at  premises  No.59, Canal Circular Road, Kolkata.

b. There was no surplus lands which were capable  of being acquired under the provisions of Urban  Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.

c. Appollo Hospitals which was put in possession  of 34,147 square metres of land pursuant to the  registered  lease  deed  dated  21.06.1991  included  the  11.66  (11.659)  cottah  of  lands  comprising of  743.21 square metres and that  Appollo  Hospitals  is  in  enjoyment  of  this  property till this date.

d. The said lands, namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah  are land-locked lands surrounded by the other  lands for which the Appollo Hospitals is having  a  valid  lease  hold  rights  by  virtue  of  the  registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991.

e. Inasmuch  as  the  Appellants  have  agreed  to  abide  by the  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  and since there was no challenge to the said  order at the instance of Appollo Hospitals or the  State  of  West  Bengal,  it  has  now  become  imperative that  the ultimate directions  issued  by the Division Bench will  have to be carried  out.

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           9 of 22

Page 10

f.  By  virtue  of  the  order  of  the  competent  authority  dated  30.10.2012,  since  Appellants  were not holding any surplus lands in the urban  agglomeration,  the  entire  extent  of  land,  namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah belonged to the  Appellants  and  the  compensation  payable  for  the said lands will have to be borne by Appollo  Hospitals alone.

13. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we examine  

the stand of the respective parties, in the first instance, we  

wish to note the categoric stand taken by the Appellants in  

their  additional  affidavit  dated  25.03.2014.   In  the  said  

additional  affidavit,  the  Appellants  have accepted the value  

fixed  by  the  approved  Valuer  wherein  the  value  has  been  

arrived at a sum of Rs.24,04,188 per cottah as of 2013 (after  

providing  land  locked  allowance).   In  fact  according  to  the  

Valuer, when he took into account the three Exhibits namely,  

Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 the value per cottah was found to be Rs.25  

lacs in Exhibit 5, Rs.58,34,133 in Exhibit 6 and 24,30,889 in  

Exhibit  7  and  all  the  three  exhibits  were  issued  by  the  

certifying authority of the State Government.  The certificates  

were dated 05.03.2013, 10.6.2013 and 27.05.2013.

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           10 of 22

Page 11

14. We heard Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for  

the  Appellants  and  Mr.  C.U.  Singh  Senior  Advocate  for  the  

Appollo  Hospitals,  Mr.  Pijush  K.  Roy,  counsel  for  the  5th  

Respondent  and  Mr.  Avijit  Bhattacharjee,  counsel  for  

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in SLP (C) No.8855 of 2010. It will be  

advantageous to refer to the additional affidavit filed on behalf  

of the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2013. The  

said affidavit was filed on 24.04.2014. While Exhibit 5 dated  

05.03.2013 was collected by the State-Respondent, Exhibits 6  

and  7  dated  10.06.2013  and  27.05.2013  respectively  were  

collected  by  the  Valuer  himself.  It  is  based  on  the  above  

materials placed before by the Valuer, he ultimately arrived at  

the sum of Rs.25,04,188 per cottah after providing the land-

locked allowance.  As stated by us earlier, the Appellants have  

stated in paragraph 13 of their additional affidavit to the effect  

“the  petitioners  accepted  current  market  value  of  land  at  

Rs.24,04,188 per cottah as valued by Valuer as of 2013 (after  

providing  land  locked  allowance)”.  Therefore,  as  far  as  the  

Appollo  Hospitals  is  concerned,  in their  written submissions,  

there  is  statement  to  the  effect  that  the  Respondent  No.1-

hospital is in agreement that it shall pay the present market  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           11 of 22

Page 12

value of land at Rs.24,04,188 per cottah as ascertained by the  

Valuer  in  his  report  of  July,  2013.  Therefore,  as  regard  the  

value of the land per cottah, there is no scope for any further  

probe and, therefore, it will have to be valued at the rate of  

Rs.24,04,188 per cottah for 11.66 (11.659) cottah of lands.  

15. What remains  to  be ascertained is  the claim of  the  

Appellants for utilization charges, interest and costs. Insofar as  

the  utilization  charges  are  concerned,  according  to  the  

Appellants they were deprived of the use of their land by the  

Appollo  Hospitals  at  least  from  the  year  1991  when  the  

hospital was put in possession pursuant to the registered lease  

deed dated 21.06.1991. It is, therefore, contended that when  

the Appollo Hospitals agreed to pay 10% of the value of the  

salami of land, namely, Rs.98,41,300 i.e. sum of Rs.9,84,130  

per annum by way of lease rent for the entire extent of lands  

at least insofar as the Appellants’ lands are concerned, they  

are entitled for normal return on the average value of  land  

from  June,  1991.   Referring  to  the  land  value  which  was  

prevailing in June, 1991 at sum of Rs.3,15,997 per cottah and  

the land value in June, 2013 at Rs.24,04,188 per cottah, the  

average  land  value  was  claimed to  be  Rs.13,60,092.50  per  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           12 of 22

Page 13

cottah and on that basis 10% of the said value is claimed as  

utilization charges i.e. the sum of Rs.1,36,009 per annum per  

cottah.

16. As against the above claim, on behalf of the Appollo  

Hospitals, it is contended that what was agreed to be paid by  

way of annual lease amount at the rate of 10% on the total  

salami  of  land  was  taken  into  account  the  larger  extent  of  

34,147 square metres within which the Appellant’s land which  

was a  small  portion of  743.21 square  metres.  It  is  further  

stated  that  the  lands  were  marshy  lands  in  1991  totally  

undeveloped till the Appollo Hospitals made improvements by  

constructing  the  hospitals  and,  therefore,  if  at  all,  any  

utilization charges is to be considered, it should be the normal  

economic rent  of  6% on the investment/capital  value which  

would be on a sum of Rs.10,001 per annum.

17. Having  considered  the  respective  submissions  and  

having noted the salient factors in the case on hand, it  will  

have to be borne in mind that after strenuous fight in the Court  

proceedings  the  rights  of  the  Appellants  came  to  be  

crystallized as regards their ownership in the Second Appeal  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           13 of 22

Page 14

No.384 of 1967 which was decreed on 25.07.1986. That was  

the  first  round  of  litigation  where  the  Appellants  could  

ultimately succeed and establish their right of ownership over  

the lands in question.  Thereafter, when they were confronted  

with the subsequent proceedings under the provisions of the  

Act,  they  had  to  launch  the  present  proceedings  again  by  

approaching  the  High  Court  and  this  time  by  way  of  writ  

petition, in which the present impugned order ultimately came  

to be passed by the Division Bench on 08.12.2009. Therefore,  

for establishing their right to their property, enormous time,  

energy and money has been spent by the Appellants. The right  

to property is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.  

In view of the nature of the location of the land which is in a  

land-locked position, the Division Bench has rightly found that  

the grievance of  the Appellants  can be redressed by giving  

directions  as  contained  in  paragraph  13  of  the  impugned  

judgment  by  which  the  Respondents  were  directed  to  

compensate the Appellants for use of the lands.

18. Keeping the above factors in mind, we are of the view  

that to formulate the basis for fixing the utilization charges the  

method  adopted  in  the  lease  deed  dated  21.06.1991  as  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           14 of 22

Page 15

between the Appollo Hospitals and the State of West Bengal  

can  be  followed.   As  per  the  said  lease  deed  the  Appollo  

Hospitals agreed to pay 10% of the value of the salami land  

value,  namely,  Rs.98,41,300 which  worked  out  in  a  sum of  

Rs.9,84,130  per  annum  as  lease  rent  during  the  period  of  

lease, namely, 30 years. The total land for which the lease rent  

was fixed was 34,147 square metres. Applying the very same  

formula  for  arriving  the  rental  value  of  the  lands  of  the  

Appellants  which is  743.21 square metres,  we find that the  

same will work out to Rs.21,355.62 per annum [(i.e.) 743.21 ÷  

34147 x 100 = 2.17 : 9,84,130 x 2.17 ÷ 100 = 21,355.62].  On  

that basis, we are convinced that the utilization charges can  

be fixed by rounding it off to Rs.21,500. Accordingly, we hold  

that the utilization charges shall be fixed in a sum of Rs.21,500  

per annum (rounding off Rs.21,355.62 as Rs.21,500) and for a  

period  of  23  years,  namely,  between  1991  and  2014,  the  

utilization  charges  can  be  arrived  at.  The  same  comes  to  

Rs.4,94,500.   

19. The  claim  of  the  Appellants  that  utilization  charges  

should  be  at  the  rate  of  Rs.5  lacs  or  on  the  basis  of  the  

average  value  of  the  land  which  was  claimed  at  a  sum of  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           15 of 22

Page 16

Rs.1,36,009 cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, it will have to  

be noted that the Appellants will be getting the value of the  

entire 11.66 cottah of  lands as per the present day market  

value  which  has  been  fixed  at  Rs.24,04,188  per  cottah.  It  

cannot be lost sight that the value of the land in 1991 was far  

lower than what is now arrived at based on the Valuer’s report  

which is for the year 2013. If the Appollo Hospitals is to pay  

the lease rent per annum based on the salami, namely, the  

royalty value of Rs.98,41,300 it will be more appropriate to fix  

the lease rent on the very same basis on which it was fixed  

under  the  lease  dated  21.06.1991.  In  that  way,  Appollo  

Hospitals cannot also have any grievance inasmuch as apart  

from salami of Rs.98,41,300 for the land, they agreed to pay  

10% of its value by way of lease rent for the first 30 years.

20. We, therefore, hold that utilization charges so arrived  

at shall be in the sum of Rs.21,500 and for the period between  

1991 and 2014, namely,  for  23 years.  The first  Respondent  

Appollo hospital is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,94,500.

21. With that we come to the next claim of the Appellants  

which is  the interest  payable on the value of  the land now  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           16 of 22

Page 17

determined by the Valuer.  Since the market value as of the  

years 2013 has been fixed as payable for the 11.66 (11.659)  

cottah of the lands, we find that the deprivement of the use of  

the land of the Appellants and the State is certainly a right  

which is a Constitutional Right  and the same was deprived for  

no fault of theirs. It is true that the land value has been fixed  

based  on the  value  which  was  prevailing  in  the  year  2013  

while the Appollo Hospitals was put in possession of the lands  

in the year 1991 and the stand of the Hospital that the land  

value  should  have  been  fixed  in  1991  though  is  not  

acceptable, the said stand can certainly be taken into account  

while considering the claim of the Appellants for payment of  

interest.  Here again,  we wish to reiterate that  in the whole  

process,  the Appellants  have lost  their  property rights  once  

and for all  and on the other hand Appollo Hospitals will  get  

absolute ownership right in respect of 11.66 (11.659) cottah of  

land  which  it  can  always  cherish  and  enjoy  without  any  

hindrance from any quarters. Therefore, taking an overall view  

of  the  grievances  of  the  Appellants,  we  are  convinced  that  

Appellants are entitled for payment of interest though not to  

the extent they claimed.

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           17 of 22

Page 18

22. According to the first Respondent even if interest is to  

be granted that can only be on the value that was prevailing in  

1991 which according to the first Respondent was Rs.10,001  

per cottah and on that value interest at the rate of 6% per  

annum can be made.  Instead, we hold that the Appellants are  

entitled for a nominal interest at the rate of 2% per annum on  

the total value of the land as accepted by both the parties,  

namely, Rs.2,80,32,832/-. On that basis, the interest payable  

by  the  first  Respondent  will  work  out  to  a  sum  of  

Rs.1,28,95,102 for 23 years.

23. With  that  the  only  other  claim  to  be  considered  is  

costs.  As  stated  by  us  earlier,  the  Appellants  have  been  

fighting  this  litigation  by  stepping  into  the  shoes  of  their  

predecessor in interest from the year 1960 onwards in Title  

Suit  No.79 of 1960 which was ultimately decreed in Second  

Appeal No.384 of 1967 by the decree dated 25.07.1986.  Even  

thereafter the Appellants had to initiate the second round of  

litigation  for  ascertaining  their  rights  as  against  the  

proceedings issued under the provisions of  the Act  of  1976  

which has taken another two decades. Thereby the Appellants  

are knocking at the doors of the Court for the past 54 years.  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           18 of 22

Page 19

Therefore,  they  are  surely  entitled  for  cost  of  the  litigation  

which  we  want  to  quantify  in  a  lump  sum  of  Rs.5  lacs.  

Accordingly, we hold that the Appellants are entitled and the  

first Respondent Appollo Hospitals is liable to pay the following  

amounts:

i. Compensation  towards  value  of  land  Rs.24,04,188 per cottah for  11.66 (11.659)  cottah  which  comes  to  Rs.2,80,32,832  (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Lakhs Thirty Two  Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and  Thirty  Two  only).

ii. Interest at the rate of 2% per annum for 23  years  which  works  out  to  Rs.1,28,95,102  (Rupees  One  Crore  Twenty  Eight  Lakhs  Ninety Five Thousand One Hundred and Two  only).  

iii. Utilization charges at the rate of Rs.21,500  per  annum  equal  to  Rs.4,94,500  (Rupees  Four  Lakhs  Ninety  Four  Thousand  Five  Hundred only).

iv. Costs Rs.5 lacs (Rupees Five Lakhs only).

Total  Rs.4,19,22,434.  We  round  it  off  to  Rs.4,20,00,000 in  all  to  be payable  by the  first Respondent to the Appellants in full and  final  settlement  of  all  the  claims  of  the  Appellants  in  respect  of  their  lands  admeasuring 11.66 (11.659) cottah.

24. Having regard  to  our  above conclusion,  we want  to  

consider  the  various  directions  prayed  for  by  the  Appollo  

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           19 of 22

Page 20

Hospitals in their written submissions and we accordingly, pass  

the following order:

a. The first Respondent shall deposit the sum of  Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General of  this Court within four weeks from today.

b. The Appellants shall make all arrangements to  produce  the  original  title  deeds  and  specify  the schedule of the land and the sketch from  the  competent  authority  of  the  revenue  department and furnish the same within eight  weeks from this date.  

c. On  submission  of  such  records,  by  the  Appellants to this court, the first Respondent  shall  inspect  those  records  and  express  its  confirmation.

d. On such confirmation being submitted by the  first  Respondent  within  two  weeks  of  the  submission of the records by the Appellants,  within  two  weeks  thereafter  the  Appellants  will execute a deed of conveyance of the land  admeasuring about 11.66 (11.659)  cottah of  land in favour of first Respondent.  

e. All  stamp duty and registration charges and  other incidental expenses for the conveyance  shall be borne by the first Respondent Appollo  Hospitals.   

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           20 of 22

Page 21

f. On such registration of the conveyance deed,  the  Appellants  will  be  at  liberty  to  seek  for  release  of  Rs.4,20,00,000  with  whatever  interest accrued thereon.

g. The  State  of  West  Bengal  shall  direct  its  authorities to ensure that the lands involved in  this appeal, namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah is  issued  necessary  certificate  of  such  demarcation.

h. The  above  said  directions  are  without  prejudice to the rights of the first Respondent  hospital  in  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  lands  which  is  governed  by  the  registered  lease  deed dated 21.06.1991 as between the first  Respondent  hospital  and  the  State  of  West  Bengal which is stated to be for a period of 30  years  with  provision  for  option  for  further  renewal for additional two terms of 30 years  each.   It  is  needless  to  state  that  the  said  rights of the first  Respondent hospital  under  the  registered  lease  deed  dated  21.06.1991  would  be  governed  by  the  terms  and  conditions contained therein in respect of the  lands, namely, 34,147 - 743.21 square metre  = 33,403.79 square metres.   

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           21 of 22

Page 22

i. On deposit of the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with  the  Secretary  General  of  this  Court  as  per  paragraph  “a”  of  these  directions,  the  Secretary  General  shall  invest  the  same  in  UCO Bank initially for a period of six months. It  shall be renewed periodically pending further  orders to be passed by this Court.

25. With  the  above  directions,  these  appeals  will  stand  

disposed of.  However,  in  order to  ensure compliance of  the  

directions by all the parties concerned, call these appeals for  

passing  final  orders  in  the  first  week  of  December,  2014.  

However, in the meantime, if all formalities are complied with,  

it  is  open  to  the  parties  to  mention  for  posting  the  above  

appeals for passing final orders.

...……….…….………………………………J.                 [Fakkir  Mohamed Ibrahim  

Kalifulla]

………….……….…………………………..J.                          [A.K. Sikri]

New Delhi;  July 23, 2014.

CA Nos……of 2014 @ SLP (C) Nos.8854-55/2010                                                           22 of 22