JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court)-In these proceedings under Article 226 the petitioner seeks suitable directions to the respondents 1 to 4 to convey property being 1/1383-89, Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. A direction that respondents 1 to 4 (hereafter referred to as the official respondents) and accept the consideration of Rs. 10,70,081/- has been made. A further direction that the official respondents should be directed not to claim the prevalent market value of the property as on the date of the petition has also been made. 2. The controversy here centres around the offer made by the official respondents to the petitioner and the private respondent (i.e. respondent Nos. 5 and 6) for purchase of evacuee property. The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules framed in 1955, provided for disposal of evacuee property which was vested with the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The suit property was one such; it was acquired under Section 12 of the Act by the Central Government. On 12.5.1978, the Central Government framed a policy for disposal of evacuee property vesting in it through sale. 3. The centrality of the 1978 policy was that transfers could be made to the occupants of evacuee properties by negotiations under Rule 87 of the Rules. The policy indicated the conditions which are inter alia as follows: (i) The valuation of these properties shall be fixed on the basis of Schedule of rates as approved by the Government vide this Departments Order No. 15(3)/75-SS.II/SS.I, dated 27.8.1976. (ii) In addition to the valuation of the property as indicated above the sitting occupants shall also have to pay arrears of rent, if any, or damages in lieu of rent as the case may be. (iii) The offer on the above basis shall be made to the sitting occupants for transfer of properties with the stipulation that the acceptance of the offer should be conveyed to the Department within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the offer along with the payment of 20% of the value of the property plus the total amount of arrears of rent/ damages. (iv) If the offer is accepted, the party may be allowed another six months from the date of acceptance of the offer for paying the balance amount without payment of any interest. (iv) If the offer is accepted, the party may be allowed another six months from the date of acceptance of the offer for paying the balance amount without payment of any interest. If the party does not pay the balance amount within six months of the date of the acceptance of the offer, he may be allowed to pay in the maximum of three annual equal instalments of the balance amount from the date of the acceptance of the offer, together with interest due on the outstanding amount from time-to-time. At present the rate of interest per annum is 10% payable annually. Provided, however, that in the event of prompt payment of instalment (s) of principal and interest by the dates, the rate of interest in relation to the said instalment (s) will be reduced to 7%. (v) In case of properties in occupation of more than one tenant or unauthorised occupant, the offer shall have to be made jointly to all the sitting occupants and the transfer documents shall also be executed on fulfilment of the terms and conditions in favour of all of them jointly. (v) In case there is some dispute between the sitting occupants, such disputes shall be brought before the Department and decision would be taken on the merits of each case. Every possible care should be taken to ensure that the Department does not get involved in unnecessary litigation on any account with any of the parties. (vii) Initially offers should be sent in favour of single occupant in possession of the property. It is requested that a detailed programme for disposal of these properties in the manner indicated above may be drawn up immediately. (viii) If certain properties cannot be disposed of in the above mentioned manner, steps should be taken to dispose of these properties by means of auction. For proper conduct of auction there should be adequate publicity and adequate dissemination of conditions of auction, etc." 4. The petitioner and the private respondent admittedly were occupants of the suit property. By letter dated 21/22.5.1981 the Central Government wrote to the Department of Rehabilitation about proposed transfer of the same on the basis of assessed market value of Rs. 10,70,081 1-. In terms of the offer, the petitioner and the private respondent were to pay the amounts in a time bound manner. By letter dated 21/22.5.1981 the Central Government wrote to the Department of Rehabilitation about proposed transfer of the same on the basis of assessed market value of Rs. 10,70,081 1-. In terms of the offer, the petitioner and the private respondent were to pay the amounts in a time bound manner. It is undisputed that the petitioner here accepted the offer on 24.6.1981. It also wrote a letter to all the Managing Officers of the Rehabilitation Department on 18.7.1981 waiving any right to challenge the valuation of the property as determined. A request was also made that the sale formalities should be completed. The respondent, however, took the position that since the offer was not made jointly by all occupants, it was not acceptable. 5. In the meanwhile, the fifth respondent challenged the 1978 scheme. It was contended that the property had been actioned earlier and that the said respondent was a successful bidder. The fifth respondent approached this Court under Article 226 by filing Writ Petition No. 2048/1982. Initially the Court had made interim order staying any proposal to sell in 1981. The writ petition was, however, dismissed on 22.1.1982 after the Court concluded that there was no infirmity the 1978 policy for interference. That order was made by a Division Bench. The order attained finality. 6. Immediately thereafter, apparently the fifth respondent challenged the offer on the ground that valuation of the property at Rs. 10,17,081/-, was unsupportable in law. This time the letter of offer dated 20.8.1982 by the Managing Officer was questioned before the Settlement Commissioner. The matter remained under consideration by the Settlement Commissioner who eventually rejected the appeal of the private respondent under Section 22 on 12.12.1986. 7. The order of the Settlement Commissioner to the extent it is relevant is extracted below: "8. In view of the discussion above, I find that the offer made in the impugned letter dated 20.8.1982 to Shri Gobind Ram Matta, M/s. Zodiac Press and Shri Fanna Lal Narula jointly to purchase property No. 1/1383-89, Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi at the price of Rs. 10,70,081/- along with full up-to-date rent/damage charges, was perfectly valid and in accordance with law and rules on the subject and is hereby confirmed. the appeal is dismissed. Parties be informed. May have a copy of the order on usual terms." 8. 10,70,081/- along with full up-to-date rent/damage charges, was perfectly valid and in accordance with law and rules on the subject and is hereby confirmed. the appeal is dismissed. Parties be informed. May have a copy of the order on usual terms." 8. In the interregnum period, after a fresh offer in terms of original valuation the petitioner again approached the official respondents and deposited the sum of Rs. 2,14,0171- on 20.9.1982. This amount was, however, returned on 8.11.1982 on the ground that the offer was not jointly made by both occupants i.e. by the petitioner and the private respondents. 9. After the order of the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner here addressed the series of letters to the Managing Officer 1 the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 2.3.1987, 17.3.1987 and 10.6.1987 expressing his willingness to accept the joint offer at the valuation as was its consistent position. The petitioner also took the position that it could not be penalised if the other occupants did not accept the valuation even though they were agreeable in principle to purchase the property jointly. The order dated 12.12.1986 of the Settlement Commissioner had been challenged by one of the private respondent i.e. 5th respondent under Section 24 of the Act. That revision was dismissed on 3.7.1987. The curtain thus came down on the dispute concerning valuation of the property. 10. The petitioner again approached the authorities on 24.8.1987 reiterating its acceptance of the proposal for joint allotment with the private respondents in terms of the valuation made. Again this met with the same answer that the property could be transferred if a joint application was made. However, for the first time, the official respondents put forward a new plea that all the sitting occupants should approach it jointly for purchase of the property at the current market cost. This was in stank contrast with the earlier stand which had maintained valuation at Rs. 10,70,081/-. However, for the first time, the official respondents put forward a new plea that all the sitting occupants should approach it jointly for purchase of the property at the current market cost. This was in stank contrast with the earlier stand which had maintained valuation at Rs. 10,70,081/-. The said letter dated 18.9.1987 reads as follows: "To M/s. Zodiac Press, Through Gurcharan Singh-Partner, 1/1383-89, Nicholson Road Kashmere Gate, Delhi Subject: Transfer of property No. 1/1383-89(N) Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi U IR 87 Sir, With reference to your application, dated 24.8.87 addressed to the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding transfer of the property No. 1/1383-89(N), I am directed to say that the property can be transferred in accordance with the Departments instructions of 12.5.1978 if all the sitting occupants come forth jointly for its purchase at the current market price. Alternatively the property will be disposed of by public auction, etc. in accordance with the provisions of law. Yours faithfully, (J.S. Sahota) Settlement Officer (E.P.)" 11. On 22.2.1998, the joint occupants i.e. the petitioner and the private respondent moved a common application accepting the offer of the official respondents and also indicating the amounts they were depositing towards advance in terms of the policy/offer. The official respondent, however, by the impugned letter dated 13.4.1988 rejected the same and stated that unless the current market value was paid the property would be put to auction. The impugned order reads as follows: "To 1. Shri Gobind Ram Matta 2. Shri Gurcharan Singh, Prop. Zodiac Press 3. Shri Pann, Lal Narula All residents of Property No. 1/1383-89, Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. Subject: Transfer of Property No. 1/1383-89, Kashmere Gate, Delhi Sir, I am to refer to your joint application ,dated 3.2~88 on the above subject. The offer dated 20.8.1982 given to you was not availed of in the light of the terms and conditions incorporated the rein, it is not possible for the Department to transfer the property on the old value of Rs. 10,70,081/-. The three Pay Order amounting to Rs.1,85,596/-, Rs. 18,748/- and Rs. 9,6731 – received along with above referred to application are returned herewith. The property can be offered to you on the current of market value as prevalent now plus payment of up-to-date arrears of rent damages charges. 10,70,081/-. The three Pay Order amounting to Rs.1,85,596/-, Rs. 18,748/- and Rs. 9,6731 – received along with above referred to application are returned herewith. The property can be offered to you on the current of market value as prevalent now plus payment of up-to-date arrears of rent damages charges. In case you are willing to purchase the property under Rule 87 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 i.e. on current market value then you are requested to send your joint consent within 30 days from the receipt of this letter otherwise the property will be disposed of by Public Auction." 12. It is contended by Mr. Keshav Dayal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the entire sequence of the events narrated would show that the petitioner was at no stage at fault. It is rather a victim of the circumstances. It neither challenged the valuation of the properties made of by the official respondents nor even questioned the logic of having a joint allotment. It accepted the policy in its own terms right from the beginning event i.e. in 1981. Although, it admittedly occupies a larger share than the private respondent, a situation arose whereby conduct of the private respondent was used by the official respondents to change the terms of offer to its disadvantage. Learned Counsel relied upon the various letters written by the petitioner and submitted that there was no whisper of challenge to valuation by it at any point of time. The private respondent too was not disputing the logic of having to apply jointly; it had only challenged the valuation. Thus, the petitioner could not be placed it a disadvantage due to the facts beyond its control. 13. Learned Counsel submitted that the condition imposed through the impugned order i.e. payment of current market value militated against the policy inasmuch as the objective of the rehabilitation department was to first regularise occupation even while ensuring a fair-price for the property. The valuation had been done according to the guidelines which was duly accepted by the petitioner. It was later accepted although after lapse of 5 years by the private respondent. In these circumstances, the change of the entire basis, i.e. offering the property at current market value ignoring that the petitioner was never at fault is arbitrary and unreasonable. 14. The valuation had been done according to the guidelines which was duly accepted by the petitioner. It was later accepted although after lapse of 5 years by the private respondent. In these circumstances, the change of the entire basis, i.e. offering the property at current market value ignoring that the petitioner was never at fault is arbitrary and unreasonable. 14. Learned Counsel for the private respondent submitted that the right and choice of citizens to move the authorities as was exercised in the present case by challenging the valuation. That was not wrongful conduct. To that extent, he disputed the contentious on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that the said private respondent had no doubt challenged the policy of 1978 because its bid for the same property was accepted by the official respondents. However, they were not successful before the Court. Thereafter, they had the right to challenge the valuation which they did. That the said private respondent lost on the merits cannot be held against them and the official respondents could not have changed the very basis of the offer. 15. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and 7 relied upon the counter affidavit and submitted that according to the policy the offer had to be responded jointly by the occupants. In this case, both the sets of occupants could not approach the authorities initially and did so for the first time in 1988. By then, they were clearly put Oi1 notice through the letter dated 18.9.1987 that a joint application would be accepted if the occupants paid the current market value. There was nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in insisting that the delay caused at the behest of some of the occupants should be suitably absorbed by a payment of the current market value. Learned Counsel contended that by doing so a better or higher value on the basis of existing valuation as on the date of the offer, namely, 1988 would have been available. Such a condition imposed was within the powers of the respondents and exercised reasonably and without malice. 16. It was contended that the offer made by the petitioner that even if the other joint occupants did not come forward, it would unilaterally pay the entire, was unacceptable because that was opposed to the 1978 policy. Such a condition imposed was within the powers of the respondents and exercised reasonably and without malice. 16. It was contended that the offer made by the petitioner that even if the other joint occupants did not come forward, it would unilaterally pay the entire, was unacceptable because that was opposed to the 1978 policy. The fact that the occupants could not see to eye-to-eye and join together with a common application was not a matter of concern as far as the Central Government concerned; as and when they chose to do so it merely indicated that the terms were different. 17. The above facts would show that policy was formulated in 1978 for disposal of evacuee property which had been acquired by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Act. In tune with the policy, an offer was made admittedly to the petitioner and the private respondent who jointly occupied the properties. The private respondent initially assailed the policy before Court on the ground he had bid successfully for the property. This Court granted an interim order which was later vacated when the writ petition was dismissed in the year 1982. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 questioned the valuation. An appeal was preferred against the offer, containing valuation, dated 20.8.1982. The appeal was itself taken up by the Settlement Commissioner after four years; it was rejected on 12.12.1986. The further revision was disposed of on 3.7.1987. It was only thereafter the private respondents accepted the valuation and joined to the petitioner for approaching with a common application. In these circumstances, the question is whether the respondents 2 to 4 were justified in insisting the higher market value prevailing as in the year 1988 should be the basis for transfer of the property. 18. It is evident from the narrative that there was no dispute about the offer by either the petitioner or the other joint occupants i.e. respondents 5 and 6. However, respondent No.5 initially had reservation about the policy he challenged it. That challenged by the order of this Court on 22.1.1982 when the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, he challenged the valuation an order was initially made on 20.8.1982 in which the offer at Rs. 10,70,081/- was reiterated. 19. The petitioner and private respondents were apparently ad idem the relevant time in 1981-82, when the offer for sale of the property was made. Thereafter, he challenged the valuation an order was initially made on 20.8.1982 in which the offer at Rs. 10,70,081/- was reiterated. 19. The petitioner and private respondents were apparently ad idem the relevant time in 1981-82, when the offer for sale of the property was made. The 5th respondent had reservation about the policy. He, therefore, challenged it and the writ petition was dismissed in January 1982. Thereafter he questioned the valuation by initially an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal was decided on 12.12.1986. The appellate order challenged by way of a revision which was later decided on 3.7.1987. It is, thus, clear as far as the other occupants were concerned, there was no challenge to the valuation or the policy. The official respondents indicated the valuation in the year 1981 at Rs. 10,70,081/-, this was reiterated on 20.8.1982 when the fresh offer was made after the rejection of the 5th respondent the petition and a specific question of valuation. The relevant part of the said order /letter reads as follows: To 1. Shri Gobind Ram Matta 2. M/s. Zodiac Press 3. Shri Panna Lal Namla 1/1383-89 Nicholson Road Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Subject: Transfer of property No. 1/1383-89 Kashmere Gate, Delhi under Rule 87 of the D.Ps. (C and R) Rules, 1955. Dear Sir, It is proposed to transfer jointly in you favour property No. I/1383, Kashmere Gate, Delhi on the basis of current market price or Rs. 10,70,081/- along with full rent/damage charges amounting to Rs. up-to-date subject to the following terms and conditions- (i) Acceptance of the offer should be conveyed to the undersigned within 30 days of the receipt of this communication along with the following payments: (a) 20% of the value of the property - Rs. 2,14,017/- (b) Total amount of arrears of rent/ attend personally and ascertain the amount Total - Rs. 2,14,017/- Payment should be made by means of two separate Bank Drafts on account of (a) and (b) above drawn on any Scheduled Bank in favour of the Settlement Commissioner, Department of Rehabilitation, New Delhi/I 20. However, the above valuation was not accepted; it was challenged. The Settlement Commissioner took his own time in deciding the appeal. It did so after more than four years. Thereafter, the parties joined together, and made an offer. However, the above valuation was not accepted; it was challenged. The Settlement Commissioner took his own time in deciding the appeal. It did so after more than four years. Thereafter, the parties joined together, and made an offer. Having regard to these conspectus of facts, it is evident that the petitioner was not at fault, for as at all material time he was ready and willing. As far as the fifth respondent is concerned, his objection was not as regard the joint nature of allotment. It was merely that the valuation was incorrect. While the authorities could certainly, take a nuanced approach with regard to delay that would possibly affect the valuation, yet the insistence on payment of current market value made for the first time through the letter dated 18.9.1987 and thereafter by the impugned letter cannot be in the circumstances of this case justified. Even as on 3.7.1987 the Chief Settlement Officer upheld the valuation at Rs. 10,70,081/-. A reading of the 1978 Policy would show that its objective was rehabitation in the most comprehensive terms. Therefore, it offered occupants of evacuee properties the choice of purchasing them. The occupants were lawful occupies, whose possession pre-dated Independence, and most certainly acquisition under Section 12. The Central Government was aware that difficulties could crop up in inter se disputes between such tenants/occupiers existed or arose; Clause (v) of the Policy empowered it to resolve those disputes. That it had structured its policy so as to leave scope for challenge to valuation could not be the fault of those like the petitioner. 21. The policy could not have been construed as preventing the official respondents to have taken a different approach as far as the 5th respondent was concerned; it could insist that he ought to pay some amount either as compensation or as reasonable interest for the delay caused on account of his challenges to the valuation. As far as the valuation initially made by the respondents were concerned, in my opinion, could not have been challenged because that was one of the modes indicated in the policy. The public authorities determination as to what should be the reasonable price offer for sale of its properties ought not to be lightly interfered with it. To that extent, the conduct of the fifth respondent definitely stalled the process and also prejudice the process. The public authorities determination as to what should be the reasonable price offer for sale of its properties ought not to be lightly interfered with it. To that extent, the conduct of the fifth respondent definitely stalled the process and also prejudice the process. Yet that should not have obscured the official respondents view from the basic objective of rehabilitation, which was the foundation of the 1978 Policy. 22. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the petition is entitled to succeed. However, to balance the equities, certain appropriate directions would have to be made. Accordingly, respondents 1 to 4 are hereby directed to accept the joint application of the Petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, a copy of which finds placed as Annexure P-10 within four weeks from today. The said three parties shall ensure that the total consideration is paid to the respondents 1 to 4. In addition, the fifth respondent shall pay 12% interest on the amount of Rs. 10,17,081/- for the period between 1st April, 1982 to 1st April, 1988. The interest liability shall also be deposited by the fifth respondent, within the same period, i.e. four weeks to the respondents 1 to 4. Counsel for fifth respondent submitted that the interest would be deposited within the time directed. Upon receipt of the amounts, the property shall be conveyed to the transferees by Respondents 1 to 4, in accordance with law. The petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are admittedly in possession of the property. 23. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs. Order Dasti to the parties. Petition allowed.