M.R.SHAH, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 282 of 2010, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondents herein - Union of India and others and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the heirs of the original writ petitioner have preferred the present appeal.
(3.) The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: That the father and predecessor-in-interest of the appellants - Hem Singh was a migrant from Pakistan and was registered as a 'displaced person'. That the claims to the properties left behind by the said Hem Singh and his wife in Pakistan were verified and assessed in the year 1951. That Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the Rules made thereunder in the year 1955 came into force to compensate and rehabilitate the displaced persons who had migrated to India from Pakistan on account of partition of the country in the year 1947. That the property in question was offered for transfer to the said Hem Singh in the year 1985 for a consideration of Rs. 26,01,846/- on the then prevailing market value as per Rule 24. 3.1 Feeling aggrieved by the said valuation, the said Hem Singh challenged the same in appeal before the Settlement Commissioner under Section 22 of the Act. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the challenge was only with respect to valuation. The said appeal came to be dismissed solely on the ground that the appeal had become infructuous because the offer had lapsed on account of not having been accepted within 30 days of its receipt by the said Hem Singh. Against the order of the Settlement commissioner, Hem Singh preferred revision petition under Section 24 of the Act, which also came to be dismissed. A further revision at the instance of Hem Singh also came to be dismissed. 3.2 That the aggrieved Hem Singh moved the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1684 of 1994. Before the High Court also, the main argument of the original writ petitioner was that the rates prevailing in the year 1955, when the Rules came into force, should apply. Thus, before the High Court also, the challenge was with respect to the valuation. Before the High Court, the challenge to the valuation was given up and the original writ petitioner agreed to pay the amount, as determined by the authority, i.e., Rs. 26,01,846/-. However, as by the time number of years had elapsed, the learned Single Judge proceeded on equitable terms by holding that on the writ petitioner's paying to the department the price quoted in the year 1985, along with interest @ 10% per annum from 1.4.1985 till the date of payment, sale deed in his favour be executed and consequently disposed of the said writ petition by judgment and order dated 14.07.2009 and directed that on payment of the price quoted in the year 1985 along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 1.4.1985 till the date of payment, the plot in question shall be sold to the original writ petitioner. ;