JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows:–– The present appeal has been preferred by the Official Liquidator, High Court against an order dated 11th October, 2001 passed by the Trial Court allowing the application of the respondent and directing that the sum of Rs. 75,27,893/- being the 50% of the unearned value be paid by the Official Liquidator to the petitioner being the respondent from the funds lying in the hands of the Official Liquidator on account of the company (in liquidation). 2. A plot of land bearing No. 13A, Block 4 at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi which was a freehold land vested on the Central Government and was placed before the Delhi Improvement Trust for disposal. 3. In 1954 the Delhi Improvement Trust invited bids for sale of the said land and the Indian Electric Works Ltd. (company in liquidation) submitted bids for the said plot and paid the entire purchase consideration. On 4th of December, 1954 such plot of land was handed over to the possession of the said company. 4. On 9th of April, 1956 an agreement to grant lease was executed between the said Delhi Improvement Trust and the said company which deposited the entire cost of the stamp for executing the perpetual lease. 5. Subsequently, one Ram Kishan trespassed into the said land. The Delhi Development Authority being the successor-in-interest of the Delhi Improvement Trust, on 26th of June, 1960 issued a notice to the trespasser under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. On 28th November, 1960, the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction against Ram Kishan. 6. On 2nd May, 1961, the Government of India took a policy decision regarding allotment of lands and one of the terms of the said policy was 50% unearned increase in the value will be paid to the Delhi Development Authority before transfer is permitted. 7. The said company (in liquidation) subsequently filed a suit for recovery of possession against the said trespasser on 2nd of June, 1966. On 27th August, 1968 winding up order was passed against the said company (in liquidation) and the suit for recovery of possession against the said trespasser was continued by the Official Liquidator. 8. On 19th of April, 1975 a decree for eviction was passed. On 27th August, 1968 winding up order was passed against the said company (in liquidation) and the suit for recovery of possession against the said trespasser was continued by the Official Liquidator. 8. On 19th of April, 1975 a decree for eviction was passed. On 26th of September, 1981 the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Development Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) came into force. The said Rules, inter alia, gives right to the Delhi Development Authority to recover 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the land and also contain a clause which prohibits transfer of land without the written consent of the Delhi Development Authority. On 5th of June 1992 an order was passed for sale of the said lease hold land and the offer of the respondent for sale of the land was accepted at Rs. 1.51 crores on 21st of September, 1994. 9. The decree in the said suit was passed on April 18, 1995, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. 10. Prior to that on June 5, 1992, this Court passed an order for sale in its company jurisdiction and the respondent in such sale ultimately purchased the said lease hold land. After confirmation of sale, the company, the present respondent, prayed for mutation of the property in its favour and its nominee. The Delhi Development Authority, on August 5, 1998, filed an application before this Court, inter alia, praying for setting aside of the sale on the ground that the same was null and void. Such application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on September 14, 1998, and the appeal before the Division Bench was also dismissed on January 25, 1999. 11. For the purpose of the present proceeding, it is necessary for us to indicate what, inter alia, was held by the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal inasmuch as in support of the present appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant Official Liquidator has very much relied upon the said judgment. 12. The ground which was taken by the Delhi Development Authority before this Court praying for setting aside the sale was that under the said Rules of 1981 although no transfer was to be made without consent of the Delhi Development Authority, such sale was made without any such consent. 12. The ground which was taken by the Delhi Development Authority before this Court praying for setting aside the sale was that under the said Rules of 1981 although no transfer was to be made without consent of the Delhi Development Authority, such sale was made without any such consent. But the Division Bench, however, held, inter alia, that the said Rules, came into effect on September 26, 1981, and, therefore, do not affect the agreement entered into between the parties as to the grant of lease which was entered into long before coming into operation of the said Rules. It was also held that the policy decision of the Government of India, dated May 2, 1961, could not also apply to the said agreement. 13. The Delhi Development Authority preferred two appeals against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court before the Supreme Court, wherein following order was passed at the suggestion of the parties :–– "On March 01, 2001, these Civil Appeals were heard at length and the Court was about to dictate judgment. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 then requested for an adjournment in order to consider a settlement. These Appeals were, therefore, adjourned. On 30.03.2001, Shri Rakesh Deivedi, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 states, that his client has filed an application before the company Judge of the Calcutta High Court with regard to payment of unearned to the Appellant herein. He states that without prejudice to that Application the Respondent shall pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs. 75,27,893/- towards unearned increase. He states that such payment will be made within eight weeks join today. He requests that on such payment being made the Appellant be directed to grant permission as per the terms of the Agreement to Lease dated April 09, 1956 and treat the sale by Official Liquidator to the 2nd respondent as valid. 14. As stated above, we have heard the parties at length. In our opinion the following order shall suffice :–– "The 2nd Respondent shall pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs. 75,27,893/- within a period of eight weeks from today. The said sum shall be accepted by the Appellant as full and final payment of their claim for unearned increase. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases the Appellant is directed not to charge any penalty or interest in this case. 75,27,893/- within a period of eight weeks from today. The said sum shall be accepted by the Appellant as full and final payment of their claim for unearned increase. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases the Appellant is directed not to charge any penalty or interest in this case. If the said sum of Rs. 75,27,893/- is paid within the period of eight weeks, the Appellant shall grant permission to transfer. The sale by the Official Liquidator to the 2nd Respondent or their nominee will be treated as valid and binding on the Appellant. The Appellant shall transfer the concerned plot into the name of the 2nd Respondent or his nominee and shall also suitable extend the time for construction on the said plot. In the event of the sum of Rs. 75,27,893/- or any part thereof not being paid within the period of eight weeks from to-day, for whatsoever reason, the impugned orders shall stand set aside and sale in favour of the 2nd Respondent shall stand set aside and sale in favour of the 2nd Respondent shall stand cancelled." With these directions, both the Appeals stand disposed of with no order as to costs." 15. It will thus appear from the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that although the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as to the non-applicability of the said Rules and the Government policy decision to the said agreement was not decided by the Supreme Court on merits, and therefore, it was also not decided whether the Delhi Development Authority will be entitled to the unearned increase in the value of the plot of land, since such order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the suggestion of the parties, it was accepted by all the parties including the Official Liquidator being the appellant herein, that the Delhi Development Authority will be so entitled to. 16. The only question which was left open by the Supreme Court to be decided by this Court was as to who will pay such amount to the Delhi Development Authority. 17. After considering the respective submissions of the parties and also the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 17. After considering the respective submissions of the parties and also the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. In our view, the Trial Court has rightly directed that such unearned increase of the value of the plot of land is to be paid by the Official Liquidator on behalf of the Company. 18. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has first of all contended that the appellant will not be so entitled to as in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court the said 1981 Rules will not be applicable. 19. As pointed out hereinbefore, in the said judgment it was no doubt held by Their Lordships of the Division Bench that the agreement between the predecessor of the Delhi Development Authority and the Company having come into being long prior to the 1981 Rules as also the aforesaid 1962 Government Policy, such policy and the Rules will not affect such agreement as such policy and the Rules cannot operate retrospectively. 20. In our view, there cannot be any dispute as to the proposition of such law as laid down by the said Division Bench. 21. But, we are also of the view that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the ratio of the said judgment will not really come in aid of the Official Liquidator. Although no doubt the said Rules and the said policy decision will not operate retrospectively, it, however, appears to us that the transfer of the land was effected on September 21, 1994 when the sale was confirmed by the Court. Therefore, such transfer took effect when the said Rules were in existence and accordingly the provisions of the said Rules will certainly apply on the said date to such transaction. 22. Consequently, the provisions as to the right of the Delhi Development Authority to get such unearned increase on the value of the land will apply. 23. That apart, such question perhaps cannot be raised by the present appellant any further as it appears that such order was passed by the Supreme Court at the suggestion of the parties including the present appellant, the effect of which obviously is that the present appellant also accepted that the Delhi Development Authority was so entitled to. 24. 23. That apart, such question perhaps cannot be raised by the present appellant any further as it appears that such order was passed by the Supreme Court at the suggestion of the parties including the present appellant, the effect of which obviously is that the present appellant also accepted that the Delhi Development Authority was so entitled to. 24. It was also sought to be argued faintly by the learned Counsel for the appellant that such sale would not amount to such transfer if such sale being involuntary. We are, however, unable to accept such contention. It appears to us that such question has already been decided by the said Division Bench following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) M/s. Parasrain Harmand Rao v. M/s. Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain reported in AIR 1980 SC 1655 , wherein it was held that the transfer by the Official Liquidator in respect of the Company (in liquidation) is a voluntary one and not an involuntary one. 25. The position, therefore, emerges that admittedly there was a transfer of the property when the said Rules were in operation and the Delhi Development Authority is, therefore, entitled to unearned increase in the value of the land. In fact there has been an unearned increase in the value of the land. The respondent, having already paid such increased price of land, it again cannot be made liable to pay also such unearned increase on the value of the land. 26. It is really the company and here the Official Liquidator of the company (in liquidation) which shall be liable to pay such amount. 27. For the reasons as aforesaid, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 28. It appears to us that in view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, subjects to the result of the decision of this Court, the respondent has already paid such unearned increase on the value of the land to the Delhi Development Authority. 29. The Official Liquidator therefore shall comply with the order of the Trial Court expeditiously. 30. We are informed that Rs. 75,27,893/-, being 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the land, was invested by the Official Liquidator under the order of the Division Bench. 29. The Official Liquidator therefore shall comply with the order of the Trial Court expeditiously. 30. We are informed that Rs. 75,27,893/-, being 50% of the unearned increase in the value of the land, was invested by the Official Liquidator under the order of the Division Bench. Such amount, after encashment, shall now be paid to the respondent together with the amount of interest which has been accrued thereon forthwith. Let xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties expeditiously if applied for. Banerjea, J. Sinha, J.