Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1956 (KAR)

Rukmini v. Union of India

2019-09-05

L.NARAYANA SWAMY, R.DEVDAS

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. By order dated 28.06.2012, this appeal was disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the demand made by the appellants to release the requisitioned property and to release the land requisitioned from Papaiah Naidu, in accordance with law. On a review petition filed by the respondent No.1- Union of India along with respondents No.2 and 3 in R.P.No.4/2014, the review petition was allowed by order dated 30.03.2016 and this appeal was restored to examine three aspects as observed therein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein claim to be the legal heirs of Sri Papaiah Naidu, who was the owner of lands bearing Sy.Nos.21 and 22 of Jarkabande Kaval Village, Bangalore North Taluk. It is contended that Papaiah Naidu, was the owner of 7 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.21 and 7 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.22, having purchased the same from the previous owner, vide sale deed dated 11.07.1932. Out of the aforesaid land, Puttanarasamma W/o Papaiah Naidu sold 4 acres 22 guntas in favour of Mohammed Ghouse, vide sale deed dated 12.03.1955. In the meanwhile, the first respondent-Union of India, Ministry of Defence, had requisitioned 10 acres 35 guntas belonging to Papaiah Naidu, in the year 1941, for the purpose of establishment of Defence Department in Bangalore North Taluk. Subsequently, vide notification dated 02.03.1973,1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 and 4 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.22, totally measuring about 5 acres 38 guntas were acquired under Form 'J' notification duly published in the Mysore Gazette on 02.03.1973, for the Indian Air Force which is the second respondent herein. It is therefore contended that after the acquisition by the Ministry of Defence,4 acres 37 guntas remained unacquired but continued to be in the possession of the Defence Department and no rents were paid thereto. 3. It is therefore contended that after the acquisition by the Ministry of Defence,4 acres 37 guntas remained unacquired but continued to be in the possession of the Defence Department and no rents were paid thereto. 3. It was contended by the appellants before the writ court, in the writ petition that consequent to the acquisition of 5 acres 38 guntas by the Ministry of Defence under 'J' notification and the remaining 4 acres 37 guntas being in unauthorized occupation of the Ministry of Defence and since no rents were paid, a claim was made by the appellants herein to redeliver possession of the extent of land which was in unauthorized occupation or pay rental compensation if the Ministry of Defence chooses to retain the same under the provisions of The Requisitioning And Acquisition Of Immovable Property Act,1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'RAIP Act' for short). However, since the first respondent did not respond to the claim made by the appellants herein, the appellants approached the writ Court in W.P.No.16553/2006. 4. The respondent-Union of India along with the second and third respondents, having entered appearance, filed statement of objections, inter alia contending that the Defence Department i.e., respondents No.2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 and 4 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.22 totaling 5 acres 38 guntas, which were acquired under the notification dated 02.03.1973 and the remaining extent of land was in the possession of the fourth respondent-Hindustan Machine Tools (hereinafter referred to as 'HMT' for short). However, the learned Single Judge, held that the writ petition was filed 46 years after the date of acquisition and the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in the writ petition at the belated stage. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 5. In appeal, this Court, by order dated 28.06.2012 held that it was clear from the material on record that 10 acres 35 guntas of land was requisitioned by the Defence Department from Papaiah Naidu. Therefore, this Court proceeded to hold that if the purpose for which the land was taken is accomplished, it is for the Defence Department to return the property to the original owner and if he is not alive, to the legal heirs. Therefore, this Court proceeded to hold that if the purpose for which the land was taken is accomplished, it is for the Defence Department to return the property to the original owner and if he is not alive, to the legal heirs. It was held that it was an admitted position that the unacquired portion of 4 acres 37 guntas continued to be in the occupation of the Defence Department, without payment of rental compensation as provided under the RAIP Act. It was therefore held that if HMT has encroached upon any portion of the land which was requisitioned by the Defence Department, then it was for the Defence Department to initiate action against HMT and recover possession from the encroacher and settle the claim of the land owner or his legal heirs. It was observed that the claim of the appellants was simple inasmuch as the property of Papaiah Naidu was requisitioned by the Defence Department and rentals were paid to them till 1973 only and thereafter, the Defence Department has not paid the rental compensation nor delivered possession of the un-acquired portion of Sy.Nos.21 and 22 which was requisitioned from Papaiah Naidu. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and a direction was issued to respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the demand of the appellants for releasing of the requisitioned property and respondents No.1 to 3 were further directed to release the land requisitioned from Papaiah Naidu in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of the order. 6. During the course of the hearing of the review petition filed by respondents No.1 to 3 herein, this Court appointed a Senior Officer of the Survey Department to measure and identify the three parcels of land in Sy.Nos.21 and 22, in the possession of the Defence Department, HMT and M/s.Dollars Construction and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The parties were permitted to participate in the process of survey. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records submitted a report along with a memo dated 27.09.2016. Objections were filed by HMT. On going through the report and the objections, this Court by order dated 01.12.2016 concluded that HMT was in unlawful possession of 4 acres 21.5 guntas. HMT was called upon to explain and justify its occupation over the aforesaid area. Objections were filed by HMT. On going through the report and the objections, this Court by order dated 01.12.2016 concluded that HMT was in unlawful possession of 4 acres 21.5 guntas. HMT was called upon to explain and justify its occupation over the aforesaid area. It was found that HMT was not in possession of any document to show its lawful authority for occupation of the excess land. Further, by a subsequent order, when it was found that HMT had put up several constructions on the land which was alleged to have been in its unauthorized occupation, this Court directed the Commissioner to once again prepare an-10- internal sketch to identify the constructed area. Finally, on 30.03.2016, this Court passed the following order: "3. After the matter was argued for some time, learned counsel appearing for the parties are on agreement on the following aspects: the order dated 28.6.2015 may be reconsidered on the three limited aspects; one is, the actual area in occupation with the concerned respondents, keeping in view the property/land which was originally requisitioned by respondent no.1 for defence purposes. The second one is, the lawful occupation of the aforesaid land or the adjoining land in possession of the respective respondents namely., the Defence or Dollar Construction or HMT Ltd., : and third is, the exact area of the land which is required to be released by the applicant-Union of India-Original respondent to Papaiah Naidu or his legal heirs who are original petitioners/appellants. 4. The parties to the proceedings in the present appeal shall not raise any contention for maintainability of the writ petition or appeal and they agree that, the writ appeal may be examined on the above referred three aspects and thereafter consequential orders may be passed in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, we find that in the impugned order dated 28.6.2012 the aforesaid three aspects are not considered. Further as all the parties to the proceedings have agreed for examination of the writ appeal afresh on the aforesaid three aspects and any points incidental thereto, no further discussion would be required. We find that it would be just and proper to review the order with the further observation and direction that the writ appeal shall be considered only on the aforesaid three limited points and the incidental aspects thereto. 6. We find that it would be just and proper to review the order with the further observation and direction that the writ appeal shall be considered only on the aforesaid three limited points and the incidental aspects thereto. 6. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, review petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent." 7. In this background, we proceeded to hear the learned Counsels. True to the anticipation of the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.S.Naganand, who appeared for the appellants, when the learned Counsel for the respondents sought to argue on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and enlarge the scope of this writ appeal, beyond the three points which were kept open for examination, by order dated 30.03.2016 in Review Petition No.4/2014, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that at paragraph No.4 of the order dated 30.03.2016, this Court has specifically held that the present appeal shall not raise any contention for maintainability of the writ petition or appeal. It was further pointed out that the three aspects which are to be examined in terms of the order dated 30.03.2016 are: (1) The actual area in occupation with the concerned respondents, keeping in view the property/land which was originally requisitioned by respondent no.1 for defence purposes. (2) The second one is, the lawful occupation of the aforesaid land or the adjoining land in possession of the respective respondents namely., the Defence or Dollar Construction or HMT Ltd., : and (3) The exact area of the land which is required to be released by the applicant-Union of India- Original respondent to Papaiah Naidu or his legal heirs who are original petitioners/appellants. 8. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Dwivedi Vs. State of UP and Others, (2003) 12 SCC 572 and Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) And Another Vs. Thandrothu Bodemma and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 552 , to substantiate his contention that the scope of the renewed writ appeal shall only be confined to the points of reference made in the order dated 30.03.2016, in Review Petition No.4/2014. 9. State of UP and Others, (2003) 12 SCC 572 and Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) And Another Vs. Thandrothu Bodemma and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 552 , to substantiate his contention that the scope of the renewed writ appeal shall only be confined to the points of reference made in the order dated 30.03.2016, in Review Petition No.4/2014. 9. The learned Senior Counsel submits that inspite of the points of reference, the respondents, especially HMT has failed to produce or place any material which would justify its possession beyond the land that was notified and acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 30.07.1958. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the notice dated 16.11.2013 issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4(2) of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore, calling upon the Chairman and Managing Director of HMT to appear before the Estate Officer, since it was found that HMT was in unauthorized occupation of 3 acres 37 guntas in Sy.Nos.21 and 22. It was pointed out from the said notice that out of the derequisitioned land,1 acre in Sy.No.21 was handed over to HMT on 10.03.1987. 10. Moreover, it was pointed out that when this Court allowed the writ appeal at the first instance, a review Petition in R.P.No.387/2013 was filed by the respondents and the same was dismissed. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by respondents No.1 to 3 unsuccessfully. Thereafter R.P.No.4/2014 was filed and neither in the appeal nor in the review petitions the question of delay and laches was pressed for consideration. 11. As regards the measurement and actual possession, it was submitted that at the instance of the learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared for the respondent-Union of India, the Commissioner, Survey and Settlement and Land Records, was appointed as Court Commissioner to inspect and identify all lands forming part of Sy.Nos.21 and 22 and identify the land held by Defence Department, HMT and M/s.Dollars Construction. The parties were permitted to attend the survey and assist the Officers. It was found and reported that Defence Department is in occupation of 5 acres 38 guntas, HMT is in legitimate occupation of 23 guntas and M/s.Dollars Construction, in 3 acres 39 guntas. It is submitted that all the parties participated in the survey and have affixed their signatures thereto. It was found and reported that Defence Department is in occupation of 5 acres 38 guntas, HMT is in legitimate occupation of 23 guntas and M/s.Dollars Construction, in 3 acres 39 guntas. It is submitted that all the parties participated in the survey and have affixed their signatures thereto. Respondents No.1 to 3 have failed to produce any document to prove the legitimate entitlement and occupation of HMT towards 4 acres 21.5 guntas which according to the report is in unauthorized occupation of HMT. It was also pointed out from the affidavit dated 13.12.2016, filed by the authorized Officer of HMT that he was unable to find any document which would authorize HMT to occupy an extent beyond 4 acres 22 guntas under the notification dated 10.07.1958. It was also pointed out from the sketch produced at Page No.239 of the paper book, that when the land was acquired for HMT, there was a railway track running through Sy.Nos.21,22,23 and 26. The land that was acquired for HMT fell on the western side of the railway track. After the railway track was removed, HMT put up a compound wall beyond the railway track, on the eastern side, thereby unauthorisedly occupying the land belonging to Papaiah Naidu, in occupation of the Defence Department, under requisition. 12. Since it was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in the sale deed dated 12.03.1955, wherein 4 acres and 22 guntas were sold by Puttanarasamma in favour of Mohammed Ghouse, it was mentioned that the Defence Department had returned 4 acres 22 guntas, the learned Senior Counsel submits that an elaborate procedure is contemplated under Section 7 and Rule 9 of the RAIP Act and Rules for return of requisitioned property. It is further more submitted when the Defence Department has admitted that it has not returned the derequisitioned property to Papaiah Naidu or his legal heirs and no material evidence is forthcoming from the Defence Department, the learned Counsel representing HMT is precluded from calling upon this Court to draw an inference from the sale deed dated 12.03.1955. 13. Sri M.Unnikrishnan, learned CGC appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 sought to make submissions regarding maintainability of the writ petition and the writ appeal. 13. Sri M.Unnikrishnan, learned CGC appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 sought to make submissions regarding maintainability of the writ petition and the writ appeal. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the prayer made in the writ petition by holding that the petition was hit by inordinate delay and laches. Reliance was sought to be placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachhman Singh Vs. Hazara Singh, (2008) 5 SCC 444 , Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur, (2008) 14 SCC 445 and Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Another Vs. G.Jayarama Reddy and Others, (2011) 10 SCC 608 , to contend that since limitation goes to the root of the matter, a suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation and the Court has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits; although no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the superior Courts have evolved certain Rules of selfimposed restraint including the one that the High Court may not enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to the petitioner if it is found guilty of laches. 14. Sri. Pradeep Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4-HMT also makes similar submissions as was made by the learned CGC. In addition, it was submitted that HMT has not requisitioned any property nor acquired any property from Papaiah Naidu under the RAIP Act and therefore, -18- question of releasing any extent of land under the RAIP Act, does not arise. Reliance was sought to be placed on the very same sentence in the sale deed dated 12.03.1955, as was relied upon by the learned CGC, to contend that there is an admission in the sale deed that 4 acres 22 guntas was indeed released by the Defence Department to Papaiah Naidu. 15. It was also contended that there was no evidence on record to substantiate that the appellants herein/Papaiah Naidu was the owner of the land in question. Reliance was sought to be placed on a sale deed dated 23.08.1974, executed by Puttanarasamma W/o Papaiah Naidu in favour of K.K.Muthukutty, where under 21 guntas in Sy.No.22 was sold in favour of K.K.Muthukutty. It was also contended that there was no evidence on record to substantiate that the appellants herein/Papaiah Naidu was the owner of the land in question. Reliance was sought to be placed on a sale deed dated 23.08.1974, executed by Puttanarasamma W/o Papaiah Naidu in favour of K.K.Muthukutty, where under 21 guntas in Sy.No.22 was sold in favour of K.K.Muthukutty. It is submitted that from the recitals in the sale deed, it is seen that on 08.01.1943 there was a partition deed executed amongst the family members of Puttanarasamma and Papaiah Naidu. It was also sought to be contended that the appellants have mislead this Court by stating that the total extent of land belonging to Papaiah Naidu in Sy.Nos.21 and 22, is-19- 15 acres 21 guntas, contrary to the extent shown in the sale deed dated 11.07.1932, wherein Papaiah Naidu acquired 14 acres 39 guntas only. 16. Sri. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the HMT also contends that the report is fabricated, the matter involves complex question of disputed facts and due to suppression of material facts, the writ petition and appeal is required to be dismissed. 17. Heard Sri. S. S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Sri.M.Unnikrishnan, learned CGC for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4-HMT, Sri Rayappa Hadagali and Sri Ganapathi Hegde, learned Counsels for respondent No.5 and Sri. S. S. Mahendra, Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. 18. Since the question of maintainability of the writ petition and appeal was raised and it was contended that the writ petition is required to be dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay and laches, we shall proceed to answer that question. 19. This Court, while restoring this appeal by order dated 30.03.2016, in R.P.No.4/2014 has recorded a finding that the learned counsel appearing for the parties are in agreement on the following aspects. The three aspects have been mentioned above. At paragraph No.4, it is clearly directed that the parties to the proceedings in the present appeal shall not raise any contention for maintainability of the writ petition or appeal and they agreed that the writ appeal may be examined on the above referred three aspects and thereafter, consequential orders may be passed in accordance with law. At paragraph No.4, it is clearly directed that the parties to the proceedings in the present appeal shall not raise any contention for maintainability of the writ petition or appeal and they agreed that the writ appeal may be examined on the above referred three aspects and thereafter, consequential orders may be passed in accordance with law. At paragraph No.5, while concluding, it was directed that the writ appeal shall be considered only on the aforesaid three limited points and the incidental aspects thereto. 20. In K.P.Dwivedi (supra), it was held that when a matter is remanded limited to re-examination on certain aspects the Court cannot open the entire case for reconsideration and re-determination. It was also held that the other aspects of the matter which was not open for reconsideration attained finality and could not have been disturbed. Similarly, in Gorie Gouri Naidu (supra) it was held that it is well settled law that even if erroneous, an inter-party judgment binds the party if the court of competent jurisdiction decided the lis. 21. There is no gainsaid that the parties are bound by their submissions, agreement, concession and undertaking given before a Court of law. The order in review clearly records the agreement of the parties that this appeal is restored with limited scope of hearing. It has been specifically recorded and directed that the question of maintainability shall not be raised or heard by this Court. So long as the said order remains unchallenged and attained finality, the scope of this remanded appeal shall remain confined to the scope of reference/remand. For the forgoing reasons, the respondents shall not be permitted to raise the question of maintainability of the writ petition and appeal. 22. On the first point for examination viz., (1) The actual area in occupation with the concerned respondents, keeping in view the property/land which was originally requisitioned by respondent no.1 for defence purposes; there is no dispute that 10 acres 35 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.21 and 22, belonging to Papaiah Naidu was requisitioned under the RAIP Act, by the Ministry of Defence, Union of India. It is also not in dispute that vide a notification dated 02.03.1973, an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 and 4 acres 08 guntas in Sy.No.22, was acquired for the Indian Air Force. Therefore, only 5 acres 38 guntas were acquired from out of the requisitioned land. It is also not in dispute that vide a notification dated 02.03.1973, an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 and 4 acres 08 guntas in Sy.No.22, was acquired for the Indian Air Force. Therefore, only 5 acres 38 guntas were acquired from out of the requisitioned land. Respondents No.1 to 3 have not produced any material to show that they have redelivered the remaining extent of land i.e.,4 acres 37 guntas. Respondents No.1 to 3, have in fact made a statement in the objections filed to the writ petition stating that respondents No.1 to 3 are in occupation of 5 acres 38 guntas only and the remaining extent is in occupation of HMT. It is pertinent to note that consequent to the disposal of this writ appeal earlier, by order dated 28.06.2012, a notice dated 16.11.2013 was issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act,1971, Karnataka circle, -23- Bengaluru calling upon the Chairman and Managing Director of HMT to appear before the Estate Officer, since it was found that HMT was in unauthorized occupation of 3 acres 37 guntas in Sy.Nos.21 and 22, other than one acre handed over to HMT on 10.03.1987. 23. The material on record is sufficient to conclude that respondents No.1 to 3 have not returned the land in excess of what was acquired under notification dated 02.03.1973 i.e.,4 acres 37 guntas, which was not acquired and continued to remain as requisitioned land. Reliance sought to be laid on one sentence in the sale deed dated 12.03.1955, which was executed by Puttanarasamma w/o Papaiah Naidu in favour of Mohammed Ghouse is not sufficient to conclude that the Ministry of Defence returned the excess land after the notification dated 02.03.1973. The material on record evidences the fact that Papaiah Naidu had purchased 14 acres and 39 guntas, under a sale deed dated 11.07.1932. Therefore, what was sold to Mohammed Ghouse and K.K.Mathu Kutty was the land remaining in excess of the requisitioned land. Even otherwise, we proceed to hold that if the Ministry of Defence had returned the unacquired requisitioned land, the same was required to be done in terms of Section 7 and Rule 9 of the RAIP Act and Rules. Therefore, what was sold to Mohammed Ghouse and K.K.Mathu Kutty was the land remaining in excess of the requisitioned land. Even otherwise, we proceed to hold that if the Ministry of Defence had returned the unacquired requisitioned land, the same was required to be done in terms of Section 7 and Rule 9 of the RAIP Act and Rules. In this regard, it is admitted by a respondents No.1 to 3 that they have no material to substantiate return of unacquired requisitioned land to Papaiah Naidu or his legal heirs. On the other hand, it is the assertion of the respondents No.1 to 3 that the un-acquired requisitioned land is in possession and enjoyment of respondent No.4-HMT. 24. With regard to the second aspect of examination viz., (2) The lawful occupation of the aforesaid land or the adjoining land in possession of the respective respondents namely., the Defence or Dollar Construction or HMT Ltd., the survey report of the Commissioner, Survey and settlement and Land Records, who was appointed as the Court Commissioner, remains unshaken. Respondent No.4- HMT, is unable to place on record any material to justify its occupation of 4 acres 21.5 guntas, which forms the un-acquired requisitioned land, originally belonging to Papaiah Naidu. 25. Finally, on the third aspect of the matter i.e., (3) The exact area of the land which is required to be released by the applicant-Union of India-Original respondent to Papaiah Naidu or his legal heirs who are original petitioners/appellants; in view of the finding given on the first two aspects and on the basis of the survey report submitted by the Court Commissioner, there can be no manner of doubt that the 4th respondent HMT is in unlawful possession of 4 acres 21.5 guntas of land in Sy.No.21 and 22 of Jarakbande Kaval Village, which should have been in the possession of respondents No.1 to 3. 26. Under normal circumstances, we would expect the 4th respondent HMT, which is a Public Sector Undertaking, to vacate and hand over the land identified as being in the unauthorised occupation of the PSU, but we realize the predicament of HMT having regard to the fact that a sizeable portion of the identified land has been developed. According to the survey report, in the identified portion there is a club house measuring 36,603 sq. According to the survey report, in the identified portion there is a club house measuring 36,603 sq. ft., housing quarters, swimming pool, borewells, septic tanks, manholes, sewage, water, sanitary and electrical lines. 27. However, it would be beneficial to notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Roy Estate Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2009) 12 SCC 194 , while dealing with a similar situation where the requisitioned land continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the Ministry of Defence for over a period of 22 years, held that enhancement of rent would ipso facto not create a tenancy so as to preclude the obligation imposed on the Central Government which requisitioned the property to release the property to the owner once the period of requisition comes to an end, in accordance with the provisions of RAIP Act. It was also held that the property under requisition with the Union of India for the purpose of the Union could not have been transferred to any other person and entity, since there is no provision under the Act to transfer the requisitioned property. As a result, -27- the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the entire requisitioned property be released in favour of the owner and the respondent-Union of India was directed to pay all the arrears of rent due. The Deputy Commissioner was also directed to take steps to evict the respondents and handover the property to the owner, forthwith. 28. In the light of the foregoing and in view of our conclusion that fourth respondent-HMT is in unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to Papaiah Naidu, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (1) The writ appeal is allowed. (2) The order dated 24.05.2010 in W.P.No.16553/2006 is hereby set aside. (3) The 4th respondent HMT is directed to vacate and hand over 4 acres and 21.5 guntas of land within the area identified as E1, R1, P1, O1, N1, X, K, C1, D1 and E1 marked in blue colour, identified as portion of Sy.Nos.21 and 22 in the sketch accompanying the report of the Court Commissioner filed along with memo dated 27.09.2016, to the appellants herein, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; if the same is complied, no rental compensation is required to be paid to the appellants. OR (4) Respondents No.1 to 4 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the value at the rate of the current guidance value fixed by the State Government, measured in square feet (nonagricultural), to the extent of 4 acres 21.5 guntas, to the appellants herein, within the period stipulated above; if the same is complied, in addition, respondents No.1 to 4 shall also pay rental compensation calculated from 02.03.1973 till date of payment, along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date when which W.P.No.16553/2006 was filed. (5) If the respondents fail to comply with the directions issued above, then respondents No.1 to 4 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay rental compensation from 02.03.1973 along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, till the said land measuring 4 acres 21.5 guntas is redelivered to the appellants herein. This, in our opinion would be an equitable remedy, in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of disposal of this appeal, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration.