AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
The Petitioners filed this petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 24.04.1985 seeking following reliefs:
(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition do issue, commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 from handing over possession of 22 building sites/plots describes in Annexure-16 to the Respondent No. 3 to 20 or to any person/persons whatsoever.
(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue, commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 to reallot 22 building sites/plots better described in Annexure-16 to the Petitioners.
(c) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the said 22 building sites/plots in Sailendra Nagar Scheme No. 27 to the Petitioners.
(d) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue calling upon the Respondent No. 1 to produce before the Hon''ble Court all the original files pertaining to acquisition of 45.68 acres of land belonging to the Petitioners and covered by the Sailendra Nagar Scheme No. 27 and also all the files pertaining to the allotment of the said building sites/plots in favour of the Respondent No. 3 to 20 so that conscionable justice may be done, by setting aside and/or quashing the allotment of the said 22 building sites/plots in favour of the Respondent No. 3 to 20.
(e) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith execute and register proper Indentures of lease in respect of the said 22 building sites/plots in favour of the Petitioners. E.1 That Respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to deliver the actual physical possession of the plots referred to, in the agreement dated 21.10.1992.
(f) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue, commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith refund and/or pay the said sum of Rs. 2,94,676/- to the Petitioners alongwith accrued interest due thereon at the rate of 24% from the date of acquisition of the Petitioners'' land comprised in the said scheme till the date of actual refund, which amount has been illegally and wrongfully retained and withheld by the Respondent No. 1 during all these years.
(g) Alternatively, a writ of and/or in nature of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the Respondent No. 1 to act in accordance with the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder for purpose of disbursement of compensation payable by the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioners for the acquisition of their 45.68 acres of land covered by the Sailendra Nagar Scheme No. 27.
(h) Rules NISI in terms of prayers (a) to (g) above.
(i) An Injunction do issue restraining the Respondent No. 1 from giving and/or any further effect to the allotment orders passed by the Respondent No. 1 in favour of the Respondent No. 3 to 20 and/or from taking any steps in connection thereto and/or from handing over possession of the said 22 building sites/plots to the Respondent No. 3 to 20.
(j) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (i) above.
(k) Cost of and/or incidental to this petition be paid by the Respondents to the Petitioners and
(l) Such further or other order/orders be made and/or direction/ directions be given as to this Hon''ble Court seem fit and proper and for which act kindness and benevolence on the part of the Hon''ble Court, the Petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.
The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the Petitioner No. 1, being the legal heir of the original Petitioner, who was the widow of Late Shri Ram Gopal Sharma was brought on record during the pendency of this petition. The Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the sons and the Petitioner No. 4 to 7 are the daughter of Late Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, who died intestate at Raipur on 22.09.1984. The Respondent No. 1 developed several housing development schemes. One of them was Shailendra Nagar Scheme No. 27 in the beginning of the year 1977. The Respondent No. 1 selected a parcel of land admeasuring 102 acres in Tikrapara ward, in the city of Raipur. 45.68 acres of land belonging to Late Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, his two sons i.e. Petitioner No. 2 and 3 and daughters Petitioner No. 4 to 7 situate in Khasara No. 293, P.C. No. 1 14, R.I. Circle Raipur, block Dharsiwa, Tehsil and District Raipur. The Respondent No. 1 in accordance with its policy offered building sites/plots under the said notified scheme to the owners of the land affected by the said scheme, besides the payment of compensation in accordance with Section 56 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act,1973''). The then Chief Executive Officer in his notings dated 09.10.1978 in the file observed that the land admeasuring 17.02 acres under the ownership of Shri Ram Gopal Sharma was to be acquired wherefor a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per acre was payable (under protest) as a part-payment and a sum of Rs. 1,97,525/- was decided to be paid as an advance. The land in dispute belonging to the Petitioner No. 2 and 3, the sons of Late Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and other Petitioner were also acquired on the same terms under agreements of sale. It was agreed to hand over the possession of the land in dispute under their ownership vide notings dated 7.7.1978 in the file (Annexure 1 to 7). The Petitioners were thereafter required to pay development charges for the proposed allotted buildings sites/plots at the rate of Rs. 1 .75 per sq.ft. to the Respondents No. 1 the Respondents No. 1 in its notings in the file contained from Annexure 1 to 7 decided to allot building sites/plots bearing No. D 293,294,295,312,297,298 to late Shri Ram Gopal Sharma, No. D 247,248,249,250 to the Petitioner No. 2, D 251,252,253,254 to Petitioner No. 3, C3, C4 to Petitioner No. 4, C21, C22 to the Petitioner No. 5, C19, C20 to Petitioner 6, and C17 and C 18 to the Petitioner No. 7, in the said scheme. Accordingly, agreement of sale of land was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1. In one of the agreement of sale of land, it was provided as under:
Whereas the parties to the said agreement have agreed that the consideration payable for acquiring the aforesaid land will be the amount that may be settle by the State Govt. under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894).
That in pursuance of the agreement the purchaser has paid Rs. 41742.50 (Rs. Forty One thousand seven hundred forty two and paise fifty only) after adjustment of development charges towards part payment at the offered of Rs. 20,000.00 per acre of the consideration that may be settled as agreed to above.
That an settlement of the consideration as may ultimately be settled as per award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the seller will be entitled only to receive the balance of such amount after deducting the amount already received by the seller from the purchaser as stated above.
Agreements of exchange (Annexure 9) was also executed between the parties. In one of the exchange agreements, it was, inter alia, provided as under:
WHEREAS the party of the first part give to party of the second party plot No. D-147 to 250 and party of the second party agrees to hand over possession of his land Kh. No. 293/ to Party of the First part and has paid the development cost as follows:
Rs. 12,000.00 Adjusted by way of compensation.
WHEREAS the parties hereto have agreed to exchange the said plots described in Schedule.
Accordingly, 22 building sites/plots admeasuring 49,745 sq.ft. of land was decided to be allotted to the Petitioners. The Respondent No. 1 accordingly had taken over the possession of 36.08 out of 45.68 acres of land belonging to the Petitioners through agreement of sale of land and agreement of exchange. The Respondent No. 1 accordingly deducted a sum of Rs. 92,950/- towards development charges of the allotted building sites/plots from the compensation payable to the Petitioners. It appears that allotment of building sites/plots, as development charges have been deducted from the part compensation amount paid by the Respondent No. 1 was final. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 1 in his memo dated 15.10.1981 (Annexure 11) addressed to the Additional Collector, Raipur confirmed that the Respondent No. 1 has acquired the land belonging the Petitioners situated at Tikrapara, P.H. No. 114, Khasra No. 293 area 16.19 acres. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/ - per acre (under protest) as part payment was determined to the tune of Rs. 1,47,525/- was paid to the Petitioners. The Petitioners were allotted 20,500 sq.ft. of land for which development charges of Rs. 3,750/- was deducted from the compensation and possession has already been taken over by the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners sent a letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Respondent No. 1, for providing lay out of the plots allotted to them in Shailendra Nagar Scheme No. 27, indicating the plots position. The Respondent No. 1 replied back on 11th May, 1982 (Annexure 30) and stated that Rs. 1,47,525/- has been paid as part compensation for the land of Khasra No. 393/1 and the balance compensation was to be paid under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in due course with regard to the plots, it was stated that in the agreement there was non-mention of any plots being reserved.
The Petitioners came to know in the last week of June, 1984 that the Respondent No. 1 had illegally allotted the building sites/plots ear-marked for the Petitioners under the scheme to different persons (Respondent No. 3 to 20) without knowledge of the Petitioners. The Petitioners thereafter lodged a complaint on 4th July, 1984 (Annexure 14) to the Chairman, Respondent No. 1. In the meantime, on 22nd September, 1984, the head of the family Shri Ram Gopal Sharma died intestate.
The Respondent No. 1 had neither handed over possession of the plot/ sites to the Petitioners nor has paid the balance compensation amount payable to the Petitioners for acquisition of their respective parcel of land. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have field this petition seeking the above stated reliefs.
Shri B.P. Sharma learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the action of the Respondent No. 1 by not allotting the proposed building plots/sites in lieu of exchange of land is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal. The conduct of the Respondent No. 1 as indicated in the notings in the file, memo dated 15.10.1981 (Annexure-11) and part payment of compensation clearly indicates that the Petitioners were entitled to building plots/sites in exchange of land acquired through agreement of exchange. The Petitioners have further been denied their constitutional right of payment of full compensation under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which was clearly mentioned by the Respondent No 1 in its correspondence also. The above stated action/non-action amounts to violation of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Learned Counsel would further submit that the Petitioners are entitled to compensation of the land in addition to the building sites/plots as proposed to be allotted. The Respondent No. 1, after having paid admittedly part of the compensation amount has neither determined the compensation nor had taken any steps to pay the same as the possession of the land in dispute was taken over way back before 15.10.1981. In fact, the total land acquired by the Petitioner was 36.08 acres and the remaining land out of 45.68 acres was sold to other persons. The Petitioners are entitled to compensation on market rate value as on date as the compensation for the Petitioners'' land was never determined. In fact, no steps was taken by the Respondent No. 1 authorities to determine the compensation and pay the same to the Petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, as stated by the Respondent No. 1 in agreement of sale as well as letter dated 11th May, 1982 (Annexure 3).
Per contra, Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Senior Counsel appearing with Shri Afroz Khan, Advocate, on the basis of return dated 23.08.1988,on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 would submit that the Respondent No. 1 offered residential plots in the scheme to the owners of undisputed land (i.e. free from encumbrances) besides payment of compensation which is mentioned in Clause-2 of the agreement. The Petitioners land being surplus vested in the Government under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1976). The settlement was only for 36.08 acres of land not for 45.68 acres of land. The orders for allotment of plots were never issued. However, learned Counsel would submit that the allotment of plots were under consideration. The actual position through exchange of land is quoted in para 3 of the return as under:
S. No. Name of Petitioners Proposed No. of plot by exchange of land Total area in sq.ft.
Smt. Ashalata C-3 & C-4 4,800.00
Smt. Hemlata C-21 & C-22 4,800.00
Smt. Pushp Lata C-17 & C-18 4,800.00
Smt. Prem Lata C-19 & C-20 4,800.00
Shri Deepak Sharma D-247,248,249 & 250 6,000.00
Shri Prakash Sharma D-251,252,253,2 54 6,000.00
Late Ramgopal Sharma D-66,67,68,69 20,500.00
Total 51,700 sq.ft.
It was further stated in reply to the contents of para 9 that the process of allotment was in progress and all the formalities were initiated by the then Chief Executive Officer but the final order of allotment could not be made. The Respondent No. 1 had taken possession of 36.08 acres of land in total by agreement of sale of land including 1.98 acres of land through exchange agreement. Learned Counsel admits that Rs. 99,150/- was in fact deducted from the amount of compensation in lieu of development charges for the proposed pots/sides to be allotted.
On enquiry, the Respondent No. 1 found that the ceiling cases were pending against the Petitioners, therefore, no steps was taken to determine the compensation and make the payment as the land in dispute were not free from all encumbrances. It is admitted that after repeal of the Act, 1976, all the land in dispute pending were released to the Petitioners. The Respondent No. 1 had thereafter not taken any steps for determination of compensation as well as allotment of plots as agreed in various notings in the file as well as some correspondences,. Since the Petitioners suppressed the facts of pendency of ceiling case, the Petitioners are not entitled to building plots/sites as per notings in the file as well as agreement of exchange of land. Further, the Petitioners are not entitled to any sympathy from this Court and this deserves to be dismissed.
Learned Counsel would further submit that it is true that the Petitioners were not given any notice/information in regard to the payment of compensation as well as handing over the proposed plots/sites to the effect that the Petitioners were not entitled to the same as the lands in dispute were pending consideration in ceiling proceedings before the competent authority. The agreements are not statutory and this Court should not entertain this petition for specific performance of the same. The Petitioners have alternative remedy of approaching the Civil Court for appropriate relief.
Learned Counsel appearing for the other Respondents who have been allotted proposed plots would submit that their possession should not be disturbed as they are the bonafide allottees and the Respondents were not aware of the dispute with regard to the plots before allotment of the plots.
I have heard counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto and some original records shown by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in the course of argument.
The first contention of the Respondent No. 1 is that the claims of the Petitioners on the basis of agreements which are not statutory agreements, are not maintainable in this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the facts that the Respondent No. 1 has agreed in its return the contents of the agreement, though the agreement were not signed by the authorities, and further that it was proposed to allot residential plots/sites to the Petitioners in addition to compensation payable under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is not necessary at this stage to dismiss the petition on the ground of non-maintainability and sending the Petitioners back to square one, i.e. to the Civil Court, after having spent more than 22 years in this Court. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has no merit and is rejected.
The Supreme Court, in the matter of Verigamto Naveen Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, observed as under:
On the question that the relief as sought for and granted by the High Court arises purely in the contractual field and, therefore, the High Court ought not to have exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution placed very heavy reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y.S. Raja Reddy v. A.P. Mining Corpn. Ltd. and the decisions of this Court in Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr., Radhakrishna Agrawal v. State of Bihar, Ram Lal & Sons v. State of Rajasthan, Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Basheshar Nath v. CIT. Though there is no set of cases rendered by this Court of the type arising in Radhakrishna Agrawal case much water has flown in the stream of judicial review in contractual field. In cases where the decisionmaking authority exceeded its statutory power or committed breach of rules of principles of natural justice, in exercise of such power or its decision is perverse or passed an irrational order, this Court has interceded even after the contract was entered into between the parties and the Government and its agencies. We may advert to three decisions of this Court in Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corpon. and Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of U.P. Where the beach of contract involves breach of statutory obligation when the order complained of was made in exercise of statutory power by a statutory authority, though cause of action arises out of or pertains to contract, brings it within the sphere of public law because the power exercised is apart from contract. The freedom of the Government to enter into business with anybody it likes is subject to the condition of reasonableness and fair play as well as public interest. After entering into a contract, in canceling the contract which is subject to terms of the statutory provisions, as in the present case, it cannot be said that the matter falls purely in a contractual field. Therefore, we do not think it would be appropriate to suggest that the case on hand is a matter arising purely out of a contract and, therefore, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in not called for. This contention also stands rejected.
The Supreme Court, in the matter of Ganga Retreat and Towers Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, observed that dismissal of the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy at belated stage is likely to result in miscarriage of justice which may now result in the foreclosure of other remedies which could be availed of by the Petitioners/Appellants in the ordinary course. At the present stage of the proceedings, the alternative remedy of filing suit would not be efficacious.
Further, in the matter of ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, the Supreme Court observed as under:
It is clear from the above observations of this Court in the said case, though a writ was not issued on the facts of that case, this Court has held that on a given set of facts if a State acts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach the court by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and the court depending on the facts of the said case is empowered to grant the relief. This judgment in K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore was followed subsequently by this Court in the case of D.F.O v. Ram Sanehi Singh wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 865, para 4)
By that order he has deprived the Respondent of a valuable right. We are unable to hold that merely because the source of the right which the Respondent claims was initially in a contract-for obtaining relief against any arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of a public authority he must resort to a suit and not to a petition by way of a writ. In view of the judgment of this Court in K.N. Guruswamy case there can be no doubt that the petition was maintainable, even if the right to relief arose out of an alleged breach of contract, where the action challenged was of a public authority invested with statutory power.
In regard to the second contention that the alleged agreement was not signed by the Respondent, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has clearly stated that after singing of the agreement for sale of land and exchange agreements were sent to the office of the Respondent. The Petitioners were paid part payment under protest. Thereafter, the Respondent did not hear anything from the Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners were forced to move the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, for seeking reliefs as stated above. The conduct of the parties clearly establish that the Petitioners were entitled to allotment of building plots/sites under the provisions of exchange agreement. It can be derived from the notings in the file, correspondence with the authorities and the stands of the Respondent No. 1 in the return filed in this Court.
I have gone through the notings, thereafter the letter dated 15.10.1981 sent to the Collector, wherein the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent No. 1 has clearly observed as under:
The similar observation in the notings of the Chief Executive Officer in case of other Petitioners have been made. (Annexure 1 to 7). Agreement of exchange (Annexure 9) makes similar admission, which is a under:
WHEREAS the party of the first part give to party of the Second part plot No. D-247 to 250 and party of the second party agrees to hand over possess of his land Kh. No. 293/- to Party of the First part and has paid development cost as follows: Rs. 12,000.00 Adjusted by way of compensation.
Respondent No. 1 in its return/reply has clearly stated as under:
It is submitted that under the Shailendra Nagar Scheme which is a part of the Katora Talab Scheme No. 16 has been implemented by the Respondent No. 1.
The lands of the Petitioners are in Patwari Halka No. 114 and Khasra No. 293 and the total area in Patwari Halka No. 114 is 46.68 acres. However, it is denied that the whole land of Khasra No. 293 is 45.68 acres belong to the Petitioner No. 1 to 7 below is a chart showing the land which the Respondent No. 1 wished to acquired and for which the Respondent No. 1 had entered into corRespondent with the Petitioners.
S. No. Name of Petitioners Areas in acres
1 Late Ram Gopal Sharma 17.08
2 Shri Deepak Sharma 05.00
3 Shri Prakash Sharma 05.00
4 Smt. Asha Lata 02.25
5 Smt. Hemlata Sharma 02.25
6 Smt. Pushpa Lata 02.25
7 Smt. Prem Lata 02.25
Total 36.08 acres
The Raipur Development Authority (Respondent No. 1) offered residential plots in the scheme to the owners of the undisputed land (i.e. free from all encumbrances), besides payment of compensation which is mentioned in Clause - 2 of the agreement, however, it may be mentioned that the Petitioner''s land as vested in Ceiling Act.
With regard to the proposed allotment of plots by exchange of land, the Respondent No. 1 had admitted in its return as under:
S. No. Name of Petitioners Proposed No. of plot by exchange of land Total area in sq.ft.
Smt. Ashalata C-3 & C-4 4,800.00
Smt. Hemlata C-21 & C-22 4,800.00
Smt. Pushp Lata C-17 & C-18 4,800.00
Smt. Prem Lata C-19 & C-20 4,800.00
Shri Deepak Sharma D-247,248,249 & 250 6,000.00
Shri Prakash Sharma D-251,252,253,254 6,000.00
Late Ramgopal Sharma D-66,67,68,69 20,500.00
Total 51,700 sq.ft.
It is therefore clearly established that the Petitioner were entitled to the building sites/plots under agreement of exchange as admitted by the Respondent No. 1 in its return. The intention of the Respondent No. 1 is clear from the notings in the file made by the Chief Executive Officer, correspondence with Additional Collector and the return filed in this Court by the Respondent No. 1.
The main contention of the Respondent No. 1 is that when the lands in dispute were acquired, the ceiling cases were pending before the competent authority under the Act, 1976. Thus, the Petitioner have concealed the pendency of the ceiling cases in regard to the lands in dispute. Thereafter, the compensation was not determined and the Petitioners are not entitled to the building plots/sites in exchange of land. The Respondent No. 1 has admittedly not sent any legal notice or information to the Petitioners that due to pendency of the ceiling cases, the Petitioners are not entitled to any compensation or allotment of building plots/sites under exchange of land.
All the ceiling proceedings came to an end with effect from the date the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, came into force on 18th March, 1999. Admittedly, all the legal proceedings pending before the competent authority before the commencement of this Act stood abated and the lands reverted back to the Petitioners. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 is without any basis and deserves to be rejected.
The Respondent No. 1 acquired land way back before 1981 and after having paid a paltry sum, the Respondent No. 1 has not taken any steps under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as provided in the agreement. It was clearly stated that the part payment was made under protest and the final compensation would be determined in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The building plots/sites were allotted in exchange of land which were acquired by the Respondent under exchange agreement. The Respondent No. 1 has admitted all the averments in its return which did not require adjudication by recording evidence or examining other papers.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on the first date of hearing on 02.05.1985 directed the Respondent not to execute any lease deed in favour of Respondent No. 3 to 20 or any other person until further orders. Interim stay order granted on 02.05.1985 was subsequently confirmed on 23.01.1990. It appears that the Respondent 3 to 20 have proceeded with the construction on the disputed plots. The contention of the Respondents 3 to 20 that they are the bonafide purchasers and their ownership and possession over the plots/sites in dispute be not disturbed, is not sustainable as the Respondent 3 to 20 have taken the risk at their cost to construct the houses, if any, on the disputed plots/site, inspite of the fact that there was stay order operating against the Respondents for not executing the lease deed. However, the Court cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life. The approach should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than precedential. (See Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (P.J.), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Haldia and Ors.), 2005 (7) SCC 164.
Having regard to the facts situation that the Respondents 3 to 20 have been in possession for the last more than 22 years, the Respondent No. 1 cannot be directed to restore the possession of the said plots to the Petitioners as per terms and conditions of the exchange agreement. However, the Petitioners are entitled to building plots/sites of the same size and value, as per agreement and understanding between the parties and also as admitted in the return filed by the Respondent No. 1.
In view of the above premises, the petition is allowed. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to determine the compensation of the lands in dispute belonging to the Petitioners, as on the date when possession of the lands in dispute was taken over. The Petitioners would further be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date taking over possession of the said land on the amount of award, after deducting the part payment made earlier. The Petitioners are further entitled to the residential plots/sites as admitted by the Respondent No. 1 in its return. The Respondent No. 1 may either allot plots of the same size and value or pay appropriate compensation, if the Petitioners agree for the same. Since the dispute has been pending for more than 22 years, the interest of justice would suffice if the needful for determination of award, payment thereof, and allotment of building plots/ sites as stated above is done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is ordered.
In the facts of the case, no order as to costs.