AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Actg. C.J.
As the controversy involved in all the three petitions are identical, based on similar set of facts, all the petitions are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P. No. 16719/2006. The petitioner is a Government of India Undertaking and is a subsidiary of Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited. The petitioner is also registered as a Company under the Companies Act, 1956, having registered office at 22-B, Raja Santosh Road, Kolkata.
The petitioner has challenged order Annexure P-6 dated 21.04.2005, issued by the Collector (Nazul) directing to the petitioner that on Plot Nos. 1 and 2, Nazul Block-23, Civil Station, Jabalpur, a Bungalow with ground, area 8.8646 acres is recorded in the name of petitioner company. The said land was given to the petitioner company for Firebricks Industry and ancillary use on Nazul Patta. As the Burn Standard Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner Company) has closed, so the purpose for which the land was given on Patta has already come to an end. The lease has expired on 31.03.1999. No application has been filed by the petitioner Company for renewal of the lease, so the petitioner was directed not to transfer, alienate the property.
Another order under challenge is dated 11.02.2005 (Annexure P-5), by which petitioner Company was asked by the Collector (Nazul) for getting his lease renewed. Third order, which is under challenge is Annexure P-9 dated 11.09.2005 by which a notice was issued to the petitioner to the effect that the lease of petitioner has already expired on 31.03.1999 and the petitioner is trying to sell the property by inviting tender, so the company has breached the terms of lease. So the petitioner company was directed to show cause why the land be not reoccupied by the State under clause 8 of the Nazul lease.
The aforesaid orders are assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the company for the purpose of establishing its factory, for its local offices as well as for residential purposes, acquired certain lands at Jabalpur. The land in dispute was purchased by registered sale deed dated 06.05.1907, a copy of which is on record as Annexure P-1. Total area, which was purchased by the petitioner, by this sale deed was 8.8646 acres. The petitioner company after purchase of the land had constructed residential quarters and a bungalow on this freehold land. Subsequently, the company fell into loss and the Central Government had taken over management of Burn Standard Company Limited and of Indian Standard Wagon Company, as per decision in the year 1973. An Ordinance was issued on 23.06.1976 known as the Burn Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company (Nationalization) Ordinance, 1976. Thereafter an Act was enacted by the Parliament known as the Burn Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company (Nationalization) Act, 1976. Both the companies were nationalized and became as State w.e.f. 01.04.1975.
The land purchased by the Company as freehold in the year 1907. Another land (which is not in dispute in this petition) was obtained by the Company on lease vested in the Company u/s 4 of the Nationalization Act, 1976. As the company was in loss and it was difficult for its continuation, it was referred to BIFR u/s 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the SIC Act) in November, 1994. A case was registered before the BIFR bearing Case No. 508/1994 in November, 1994. At the time of hearing BIFR on 20.01.1995 the Company was declared as SIC company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the SIC Act. The revival scheme Annexure P-2 was sanctioned on 16.04.1999 for the petitioner Company.
To meet out continuous losses, it was decided that the assets of the petitioner Company be put on sale. The industry of the petitioner Company situated at Jabalpur was treated as a loss making refractory unit and as per the revival package of the company, approved by BIFR, the industry was closed on 31.12.2000. All the employees of the Unit were allowed to dispense with their services of the company under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. To make the financial arrangement to meet out the expenses in the discharge of liabilities of the company towards the employees, it was decided that the freehold land of 8.8646 acres of Civil Lines, Jabalpur located at Civil Block No. 23, Plot Nos. 1 and 2 be put to sale and the sale proceeds be utilized for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of the petitioner company towards the employees. So far as the local taxes etc are concerned, the petitioner company was regularly paying to the State Government towards freehold lands. The last payment of receipt is on record as Annexure P-3.
That Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur had served a notice of demand on petitioner company demanding property tax and other taxes for the building constructed on the land. A total demand of Rs. 1,47,57,525/- was made by the Municipal Corporation. Since the amount could not be paid, the Municipal Corporation attached the property and directed for auction of the land for realizing the tax from the petitioner company.
The objections were raised by the petitioner company on the ground that the proceedings before BIFR were going on and the land of the petitioner could not be attached or sold without permission of the BIFR but those objections were not considered by Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and ultimately a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 1988/2004 was filed before the High Court.
In the meantime, the Indian Railway established its Central Western Zone at Jabalpur. A demand of land was made by the Railways. The petitioner company was intending to transfer the land to the Railway. All these facts were brought to the notice of the High Court in W.P. No. 1988/2004. The High Court after considering the facts have found that since the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur had a right to recover the tax from the petitioner company and the petitioner had already extended an offer to sell the lands to Railways, by creating a charge on the land, the petition was finally disposed of with the directions that at the time of execution of transfer deed by the petitioner in favour of the Railways, the dues of the Municipal Corporation shall be paid directly by the Railway to the Municipal Corporation, as a part of consideration of the sale deed and with some other directions also, the writ petition was finally disposed of. A copy of the order passed by the High Court is on record as Annexure P-4.
For sale of the land, no objection certificate was required from the Collector, Jabalpur, an application in this regard was filed before the Collector, Jabalpur. When the aforesaid application was filed, in place of passing any order on the application, the impugned order dated 11.02.2005 (Annexure P-5) was issued, by which it was directed to the petitioner to get the lease renewed at first instance and only then permission of sale could have been demanded. The petitioner immediately resisted that the land in question was not a leasehold lease but was a freehold land as it was purchased by registered sale deed long back in 1907, so there was no question of renewal of any lease, but these aspects were not considered by respondent and another order Annexure P-6 dated 21.04.2005 was issued, by which the Collector, Jabalpur had imposed a total ban for sale or transfer till the renewal of the lease. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the Collector, Jabalpur had initiated proceedings for cancellation of the alleged lease and no objection certificate was issued by the Collector. In the meantime, the Municipal Corporation has also enhanced the property tax to the tune of Rs. 2,20,73,625/- vide its demand dated 25.01.2005.
Because of the aforesaid proceedings, Railway had lost its interest in purchasing the land of the petitioner and ultimately issued a letter that the Railway has no interest in purchasing the land from the petitioner and petitioner is free to proceed in accordance to its wishes for sale of the land.
The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the land in question is neither leased land, no Patta was granted to the petitioner but the entire insistence of the respondent authority was for getting the lease renewed, was without any basis, the land was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 06.05.1907 Annexure P-1. In spite of the fact that no Patta was granted to the petitioner, the Collector, Jabalpur had insisted the petitioner company to remain present before it to explain why in terms of the condition No. 8 of the lease, the possession of the land should not be taken. A copy of the notice is on record as Document No. 9. The petitioner filed the reply of the notice reiterating its contention that it was a freehold property, never leased to the petitioner but no decision was taken by the respondents in this regard. No objection certificate, as prayed by the petitioner, was also not issued in favour of the petitioner.
Thereafter the respondents had issued another notice Annexure P-9 dated 11.09.2005 showing intention of respondent No. 2 to take possession of the disputed property.
The petitioner in para 5.10 of the petition has specifically stated that there were two properties, one which is in dispute and another is 60 acres of the land, which was allotted by the State Government on lease. Out of 60 acres of the land, 52 acres of the land was already allotted to the Railway after the expiry of the period of lease and the possession of the land was already handed over to the Railway, remaining area was in possession of the petitioner in respect of that leased property. In the present case, the property which is freehold property is under dispute. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the action, as contained in Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-9 by the respondent No. 2 may be quashed, treating the land in question as freehold land of the petitioner and all the proceedings initiated by the respondents may be quashed.
W.P. No. 593/2010 has been preferred by the petitioner company on the basis of same set of facts challenging order dated 23.1.2007 issued by respondent No. 2, by which it was held that the right in leased property shall be deemed to be surrendered in favour of the State, the Patta of the land is canceled and the land is declared as Government land and shall vest in the Government. This order has also been challenged by the petitioner on the same ground. As this order was passed during the pendency of the petition, so another writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the aforesaid order.
(a) Third petition W.P. No. 3887/2005 is filed by M/s. Samdariya Builders, is based on the fact that the Burn Standard Company had filed a Scheme before the BIFR for declaring the company as a SIC Company and scheme for rehabilitation was sanctioned by the BIFR on 16.04.1999 recommending that the interest free loan be sanctioned by the Government of India to the company to meet out the dues of employees.
(b) Thereafter a decision was taken by the Board of Directors of the Company in its 134th meeting held on 08.08.2001 to initiate auction for outright disposal of all the 7 Loss Making Refractory Units (LRUs) and Jellingham Fabrication Yard (JFY) on the terms "as is where is based". That the Board had also taken a decision that disposal be made through MSTC and the auction be completed by 31.03.2002 by inviting tenders. The tenders were invited and were opened on 12.03.2002.
(c) Ultimately, the tender of the petitioner company being H-1 was accepted on the condition of immediate payment of Rs. 12 Crores on handing over possession of freehold land and Rs. 4.51 crore after right to land is transferred in the name of the petitioner. The reserve price of this land was 11.93 crore.
(d) The TEC had recommended to accept the final offer of petitioner for Rs. 16.51 crore with a condition to make payment of Rs. 12 crore immediately on possession of the freehold land and balance of Rs. 4.51 crore after the rights are transferred in the name of petitioner. It was also directed that in case any area is curtailed, the value of same will be reduced proportionately from the final amount. The Board had accepted the recommendation of TEC, however, in order to clarify the position, the Board had advised BSCL to seek clarification on the issue of proportional reduction in the value of land and superstructures on it. After obtaining the clarification, the matter was then to be referred to the Central Government for approval and for execution of sale/transfer of the property to the petitioner.
(e) That the petitioner Company by corrigendum No. 23 dated 27.02.2002 had itself proposed the alternative prices for submission of tender. The two options were given by the Company one of which was that the bidder shall opt for the sale of the property. The petitioner M/s. Samdariya Builders in the negotiation held on 19.04.2002, had made a proposal of lump sum amount of Rs. 11.6 Crores for whole of the properties provided the Company being relieved of its responsibility of getting lease renewed by the State Government. Thereafter another negotiation took place, in respect of the earlier offer of the petitioner, for Rs. 16.16 crores. Ultimately vide Annexure P-2, Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited sent a letter on 26.07.2002 to the Ministry of HI & PF for acceptance of the offer of M/s. Samdariya Builders for Rs. 16.51 crores with a condition of payment of Rs. 12 Crores immediately and balance of Rs. 4.51 crores after right of land is transferred in his name.
(f) That the tender of petitioner M/s. Samdariya Builders was accepted by the Burn Standard Company Limited in its meeting dated 19.04.2002, however, in the second round of negotiation on 12.07.2002 at Calcutta, letter dated 26.07.2002 Annexure P-2 was issued to the Government of India.
(g) That the petitioner M/s. Samdariya Builders had deposited Rs. 25 Lakh during the proceedings of tender but subsequently the cheque was returned to the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner had sent a letter dated 02.07.2004 to the respondents for transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner, but when no response was received, the present writ petition was filed for transfer/sale of the land in favour of the petitioner, as per acceptance of the bid.
It will be pertinent to mention here that a letter dated 18.04.2003 was also issued by the Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited to the Ministry of HI & PF, New Delhi. It was intimated that the West Central Railway was not interested for acquiring the land in question and now H-1 party Samdariya Builders may be contacted, who erstwhile wanted to purchase the land and if they are still interested, so the deal can be completed. It was prayed by the petitioner M/s. Samdariya Builders that the respondents may be directed to give effect to the offer made by the petitioner by transferring the land to the petitioner.
The matter is mainly contested by the State of Madhya Pradesh who have opposed W.P. No. 16719/2006 and W.P. No. 593/2010 on the ground that the land in question was leased out to petitioner Company. The land is government land and the status of the land is still maintained as government land. So the Collector, Jabalpur had rightly passed the impugned order in which there is no fault. It would be appropriate if paragraphs 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the return are referred. The aforesaid paragraphs read thus:-
It is submitted that land in question was never remained under any private title or ownership and even in the British regime it was a government land. The available records clearly shows that land in question which was known as Old Mission Bungalow with the land containing 8 acres 29 poles in the Civil Lines at Jabalpur was gifted to the then agent of Church Missionary Society in the year 1855 as a ''Crown Gift'' for religious purposes. Such crown gifts were authenticated under the erstwhile Crown Gift Act 1895, which was subsequently renamed as Government Gifts Act in the year 1950 after independence. The erstwhile estates upon which Government Gifts Act 1950 was applicable were merged in the erstwhile State of M.P. formulated after independence and the aforesaid Act in respect of merged States was validated under the merged States Laws (Estates) Act 1950 (Act No. 12 of 1950). The records also reveal that aforesaid gift in favour of Church Missionary Society did not change the title of the land as even after gift, land tax was payable to the Municipal Committee on yearly basis.
(Emphasis Supplied)
As the status of the above referred land was still maintained in the revenue records as government land, which was gifted to the Church, the then Asstt. Settlement Officer initiated the process for levy of lease rent as well as execution of formal lease. Notices were issued to the Manger of the Company on 10/09/1919. The ASO also made an enquiry into records in order to ascertain status of the land and after due verification he recommended that area of plots may be reassessed and a common lease may be executed in favour of the Company. Subsequently he prepared a report on 27/12/1919 which was approved by the then District Commissioner on 11/1/1920. The petitioner Company was asked to execute the formal lease in respect of land/plot in question and to pay lease rent. As the petitioner Company did not respond to the aforesaid request and did not execute any lease, the lease rent was fixed by the ASO vide order dt. 20/6/1921. The answering respondents shall produce the relevant revenue proceedings pertaining to fixing of lease rent for due satisfaction of this Hon''ble Court, if occasion so arises.
The petitioner Company did not raise any objection of any kind during the aforesaid proceedings and rather started paying lease rent as fixed under the orders of the then District Commissioner. In this manner, the Company accepted its status to be a lease on the government land. Under the above referred proceedings, the aforesaid land was treated to be on lease in favour of the Company for a period of 30 years and the Company had been paying lease rent during all these years as fixed by the Government. The aforesaid duration of lease came to an end on 31/5/1949. However the proceeding for renewal of the lease initiated at the instance of Company was kept pending due to continuing settlement and the duration of lease was extended from time to time. The MPLRC 1959 came into existence w.e.f. 21/9/1959 and the fresh process for fixing the lease rent had been taken up in terms of Sec. 103 of the Code. The Company continued with the lease till 1967-68 when the lease rent was revised and the renewal of lease was ordered in favour of the Company for further 30 years vide order dt. 29/1/1969. Copy of the renewal order contained in the report of ASLR Jabalpur is annexed herewith as Annexure R/2.
It is submitted that during the aforesaid renewal proceedings, the petitioner Company did not raise any such objection and accepted its status to be a lessee and had been paying lease rent till renewed lease again got expired in the year 1999. Under the circumstances the petitioner is estopped by its deeds to bring its status in question of being a lessee under the collateral proceedings and it is not permitted in the eyes of law to turn around making an attempt to establish itself as a titleholder on certain hypothetical grounds. It is not a case of the petitioner that it was not aware of earlier revenue proceedings in respect of fixation of lease and renewal of lease or there was any fraudulent representation made to it, therefore it is bound by its accepted status of a lessee by its deeds and the same operates an conclusive bar and the plea of non-est factum is not open to the petitioner. The law is well settled in this regard.
Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to refer one glaring fact of the matter. The petitioner Burn Standard Company Limited had purchased the disputed land by a registered sale deed dated 06.05.1907. A copy of the registered sale-deed is on record as Annexure P-1. The sale deed was executed by the Church Missionary Trust Association. The total area 8.8646 acres was transferred by the Church in favour of petitioner. In the return filed by the respondents it has been specifically admitted in para 8 that it was a government land and was gifted by the Crown to the Church Missionary Society in the year 1855 as a Crown Gift for religious purposes. Such crown gifts were authenticated under the erstwhile Crown Gift Act 1895, which was subsequently renamed as Government Gifts Act in the year 1950. Though it is stated that the gift in favour of the Church Missionary Society had not changed the title of the land as even after the gift the land tax was payable to the Municipal Corporation on yearly basis.
That once the land was gifted by the Crown in favour of the Church then how it was a leasehold land, nothing is on record. No documentary evidence is produced by the State to show that in spite of the gift by the Crown in favour of the Church, how the such gift can be treated as ''lease''. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntary and without any consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. No provision could be brought to our notice to show that by some statutory provision a gift once made could have been treated as lease. In absence of any specific provision in this regard and to the fact that the factum of gift is an admitted fact, the title of the petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed Annexure P-1 cannot be doubted. In view of the aforesaid provision, once the gift was affected and was accepted by the Church then until and unless there is stipulation in the gift deed itself only then such gift can be revoked but it is not the case of the respondents that such gift was revocable but the entire case is that the land was a leased land. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State was specifically asked to show that whether there is any lease deed or Patta granted in favour of the petitioner by the State or any order directing grant of lease in favour of the petitioner but nothing could be shown to us. In absence of which, in view of the admitted position that gift was made by the Crown in favour of the Church, there is no iota of doubt that the land was gifted to the Church by the Crown. It is also not in dispute that the Church Missionary Trust Association had sold the property by registered deed dated 06.05.1907 Annexure P-1 in favour of the petitioner. In absence of any lease deed or Patta or an order of lease, there was no lease in the existence and the orders Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-9 treating the land as lease land and order Annexure R-1 by which the land in question was directed to be vested in favour of the State, cannot sustain under the law and accordingly, these orders are quashed. It is held that the lands belong to the petitioner and it is in possession of the petitioner under the deed Annexure P-1.
Now the second petition which is filed by the petitioner M/s. Burn Standard Company Limited by which the order Annexure P-10 has been challenged may be looked into. The order Annexure P-10 is the same order, Annexure R-1 which is filed in W.P. No. 16719/2006 by which the land has been directed to be vested in favour of the State by terminating the lease. As it has been held that the land in question was not a lease land, so the impugned order Annexure P-10 in W.P. No. 593/2010 is also quashed.
The W.P. No. 3887/2005 is filed by the petitioner for seeking directions that the order Annexure P-1 by which the fresh tender was invited for sale of property may be quashed is concerned, it would be appropriate to mention that this petition was initially disposed of finally by an order dated 23.05.2005 which reads thus:-
By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) It is, therefore, prayed that the notice inviting tender for sale of properties at Jabalpur as per Annexure-P/1 may kindly be quashed. Further the respondents be directed to pass an order on the decision of TEC for transferring the said land in favour of the petitioner.
(ii) It is further prayed that the respondent No. 1 to 4 be directed to transfer/sale the land in question in favour of the petitioner as per the bid and the decision taken by the BIFR.
(iii) The respondents be also directed to issue formal approval if not issued as per the decision dated 27.7.2002 for transferring the land in question in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) It is also prayed that all the respondents be restrained from making disposal of the said land in question, in any way either by auction or sale etc. to any other person except the petitioner.
(v) This Hon''ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as the Hon''ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.
Mr. R.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Union of India has not yet taken any decision as a consequence of which the petitioner has been compelled to face difficulty and enormous financial plight. Shri Nikhare, learned standing counsel for the Union of India, has fairly submitted that the Union of India had not been able to take any decision thinking that it would handover the plot belonging to the Burn Standard Company Ltd. To Railway but in the meantime the Railway made alternative arrangement as a result of which the petitioner has been refunded the money.
Mr. Gupta has submitted that as the property of Burn Standard Company Ltd. has vested with Union of India and the Railway has refused, the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh proposal to the Union of India for its decision. Learned standing counsel for Union of India Mr. Nikhare has submitted that if the petitioner approaches the Union of India with a fresh proposal it shall be duly considered.
In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to direct that if a fresh proposal/representation is submitted within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be decided by the competent authority of the Union of India within a period of three months keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances. Till a decision is arrived at, no steps shall be taken for alienation of the property in question.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
The aforesaid order was subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 2165/2006 before the Apex Court which was finally disposed of by an order dated 21.04.2006 by the Apex Court. The order of the Apex Court reads thus:-
Counsel appearing for the respondents agrees that the impugned order be set aside and the case remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
The parties, except the appellant herein, were duly represented before the High Court. The appellant undertakes to put in its appearance before the High Court. Keeping this in view, we do not think that it would be necessary to serve the parties afresh.
The High Court shall proceed with the writ petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
The matter is mainly contested by the State of M.P. and not by other respondents. During the pendency of this petition, a letter dated 08.10.2004 has been issued by Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited. For ready reference, the aforesaid letter is quoted, which reads thus:-
Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
08.10.2004
BBUNL : DF : 2004-05 Shri S.V. Bhave Joint Secretary Deptt. of Heavy Industry Ministry of HI & PE Udyog Bhawan New Delhi
Dear Sir,
Re: Sale of land to Railways at Jabalpur (MP) by Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
I am enclosing a copy of letter no. WHO/111/land acquisition dated 20.09.2004 received from Chief Engineer (HQ) West Central Railways, on the above subject, which is self-explanatory. It can be seen from the enclosed letter that W.C. Railways is not interested for acquiring the land in question. Accordingly I am advising BSCL to pursue vigorously the MSTC for re-tendering. Alternatively, if it is agreed by DHI, we may contact H1 party, Samdariya Builders, who initially wanted to purchase the land, if any are still interested, so that deal can be completed.
Yours faithfully For BHARAT BHARI UDYOG NIGAM LTD., SD/- (D. Ray Moulik) Chairman & Managing Director (Actg.)
During the course of hearing, the parties present have not disputed the correctness of the letter Annexure P-13, however, it is submitted that the matter shall be now processed by the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. So far as Union of India is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel appearing for the Union of India that the Union of India has no concern with the land and the matter is between petitioner and respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
As the W.P. No. 16719/2006 and W.P. No. 593/2010 have been allowed by this Court and now the clouds which were against the petitioner of W.P. No. 16719/2006, W.P. No. 593/2010 and the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 of W.P. No. 3887/2005 have been removed and it has been held that the property in question belongs to respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, the respondents can proceed in the matter in accordance with law, in continuation to letter dated 08.10.2004 issued by respondent No. 2 with the petitioner M/s. Samdariya Builder who was H-1 and its offer was accepted long back in the year 2002.
As the matter remain pending before this Court for a considerable period of 8 years and during this period the price of the land in question may have increased, in view of the aforesaid, it would be appropriate, to meet out ends of justice, some directions may be issued to protect the interest of M/s. Burn Standard Company Limited. The initial offer was made long back in the year 2002 and this matter has remained pending for a period of 8 years, the prices of the land must have increased. It would meet ends of justice if the petitioner revise its earlier offer in so far as it relates to consideration to the tune of the double of the earlier amount which was earlier offered to M/s. Burn Standard Company Limited. This amount can be treated by way of interest on the amount of offer which was made in the year 2002.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petitions are finally disposed of with following directions:-
(i) W.P. No. 16719/2006 is allowed and the orders Annexure P-5 dated 11.02.2005, Annexure P-6 dated 24.04.2005 and Annexure P-9 dated 11.09.2005 are hereby quashed.
(ii) W.P. No. 593/2010 is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-10 (Annexure R-1 of W.P. No. 16719/2006) is hereby quashed.
(iii) W.P. No. 3887/2005 is finally disposed of with following directions:-
(a) The petitioner may submit a revised offer of the double of the amount which was earlier offered by the petitioner and accepted by the respondents. The aforesaid offer shall be made in writing by the petitioner within a period of 60 days from today, which shall be in continuation of earlier offer accepted by the respondents.
(b) If such an offer is submitted, the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 shall process the matter as per letter dated 08.10.2004 supra. The respondents shall finalize the matter within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of offer of the petitioner and to execute necessary deed etc after receiving the consideration.
No order as to costs.