1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 263  OF 2007

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.  ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

G. SAREEN ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. The Rehabilitation Housing Corporation Ltd., the predecessor in interest of  

the appellants, allotted a plot of land to respondent's father on 24.4.1955.  As the said  

plot was subsequently allotted to someone else, the respondent's father was allotted  

another plot bearing No.E/51-52, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, in terms of the agreement  

dated  22.10.1955.  On  the  request  of  the  respondent's  father  the  said  plot  was  

transferred in the name of the respondent on 27.7.1956.  The major part of the price  

had been paid by the respondent's father in 1955-56 and a small balance was paid by  

30th April, 1968.  However, as the said plot was in the possession of the encroachers,  

possession thereof could not be delivered to the respondent.  

2. The  respondent  therefore  requested  the  appellants  to  remove  the  

encroachers and deliver possession of the plot to him.  The appellants made some half-

hearted  attempts  by  filing  a  suit  which  was  dismissed  for  non-prosecution,  and

2

subsequently the appeal filed by appellants was also dismissed for non-prosecution.  

Ultimately,  at  the request  of  the respondent,  proceedings were initiated under the  

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and after protracted  

litigation, possession of the plot was secured from the encroachers in July, 2001.  

3. But  instead  of  delivering  possession  to  the  respondent,  the  appellants  

requested  the  respondent  to  produce  a  refugee  registration  certificate.   The  

respondent pointed out that he and his father were non-displaced persons and the  

question  of  production  of  a  refugee  registration  certificate  did  not  arise.  But  the  

appellants refused to deliver possession without such a certificate. Feeling aggrieved,  

the respondent filed C.W.P. No. 2578/2003 seeking transfer of ownership by means of  

a deed of conveyance. The said petition was allowed with a direction to the appellants  

to convey the said plot and transfer its ownership to the respondent without delay.   

4. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellants in an  

intra-Court  appeal.  The  Division  Bench  found  that  the  requirement  relating  to  

production  of   a   refugee  registration  certificate  was  not  warranted  and  the  

respondent was entitled to the relief granted by the learned Single Judge. The Division  

Bench of the High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.  

The said order of Division Bench is under challenge in this appeal.

5. The respondent in whose favour the allotment was transferred in 1956, has  

been running from pillar to post requesting the appellants and its  predecessor for  

delivery of possession of the plot. Non-delivery and delay were solely attributable to  

the appellants. In the earlier stages, the plot could not be delivered on account of the

3

encroachment.   But once the encroachment was removed, there was no reason as to  

why it could not be delivered and conveyed to the respondent. The fact that the prices  

of  land  had  gone  up between  1985 to  2005 is  no  ground to  deny  the  plot  to  the  

respondent.   

6.  A attempt was made to contend that the relief sought was for specific performance  

of an agreement for sale and respondent ought to have approached the civil court. We  

are  surprised  at  such  a  contention  being  put  forth  by  the  Union  of  India.  The  

allotment  is  admitted.  The  delay  is  admitted.  The  fact  that  respondent  was  not  

responsible for the delay is admitted. There is no justifiable reason to deny relief to  

respondent. We fail to see the need to drive the respondent to a civil court.  

7. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by  

the High court.  The appeal is dismissed.  However, the direction for payment of costs  

of Rs. 25,000/- is deleted.  

..........................J (R.V. RAVEENDRAN)

..........................J   (HARJIT SINGH BEDI) NEW DELHI, APRIL 21, 2009.

4