Union of India & Ors v. Maj Gen Anil Sawhney

MANMOHAN, J. AUGUST 13, 2010 nm/dk

LPA No.281/2010 Page 1 of 6 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 30th July, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 13th August, 2010 + LPA 281/2010 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Jatan Singh, Mr. Ashok Singh, Advocates versus MAJ GEN ANIL SAWHNEY (RETD.) ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this intra-Court appeal the challenge is to legal substantiality of the order dated 12th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.662/2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the demand raised by the Land and Development Officer, the second respondent herein, vide order dated 21st/25th October, 2002 with respect to the unearned increase payable by the writ petitioner regarding the property situate at 25 Babar Lane, New Delhi. LPA No.281/2010 Page 2 of 6 2. The father of the writ petitioner late Mr.S.P.R. Sawhny was killed in Lahore on 12th August, 1947 during the India-Pakistan partition riots. He had left several movable and immovable properties in Pakistan. The mother of the petitioner preferred a claim before the Special Claims Officer, Gurgaon for grant of compensation on her behalf and on behalf of the writ petitioner and his brother. On 14th February, 1952, the Special Claims Officer passed an order assessing the share of late Mr.S.P.R. Sawhny at Rs.4,92,750/- and 42 acres of land was allocated in Tehsil Jagadhari, District Ambala to his legal heirs. The aforesaid compensation amount was utilized by the mother for the purchase of property at 25 Babar Lane, New Delhi. It was claimed that in view of Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 the writ petitioner became an associate owner along with other legal representatives of late Mr.S.P.R. Sawhny. 3. As pleaded, on 18th December, 1976, a family settlement was effected between the writ petitioner and his mother and brother whereby various movable and immovable properties of the HUF were distributed. Dispute arose between them which led to filing of Suit No.309/1998. Eventually a compromise was arrived at in the said suit. The said compromise was taken on record and by order dated 29th March, 2001 the suit was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of the compromise. The parties agreed that the entire property will fall to the share of the writ petitioner. The remaining legal heirs of late Mr.S.P.R. Sawhny executed relinquishment deed relinquishing their rights in his favour. On 14th July, 2001, the writ petitioner LPA No.281/2010 Page 3 of 6 wrote to the respondent No.2 seeking mutation of the property. Continuous reminders were sent and eventually on 16th January, 2002, the respondent No.2 required the writ petitioner to pay 50% unearned increase on the 2/3rd share of the property. The same was resisted by the petitioner by explaining his stand that the other property that had fallen to his share under the same compromise no unearned increase had been demanded for mutation. Despite the same, the respondent No.2 reiterated the demand. As the order continued, the writ petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that when there was relinquishment of rights in favour of the writ petitioner pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the parties to the suit in respect of number of properties, no unearned increase was liable to be levied. 5. The said stand was resisted on the ground that the writ petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.9 lacs each to the other legal heirs, namely, Ms.Usha Vijh and Mr.Satish Sawhney and, hence, the same would tantamount to consideration for the undivided sh