Harbir Singh Sawhney vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Reserved on: 21 July, 2026.
st
Pronounced on: 31 August, 2026.
st
Uploaded on: 31 August, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 5764/2014 & CM APPL. 14209/2014
HARBIR SINGH SAWHNEY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Chandrika Gupta and Ms.
Saumya Chopra, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha & Mr. M. S.
Akhtar, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.:
The controversy
1. This litigation arises from a statutory auction of land conducted by the
Ministry of Rehabilitation in December 1960. Sohan Singh, the successful
bidder, had the sale consideration adjusted against the compensation due to
him as a displaced person and was thereafter issued a Sale Certificate in
1963. By then, however, the land had already been restored to the recorded
th
owners by an order dated 30 December, 1961. Years later, when the land
was acquired for the Noida Toll Bridge, the acquisition compensation was
paid to those restored owners. Sohan Singh, and later his successor, were
thus left with neither the land for which consideration had been adjusted nor
the monetary benefit which would ordinarily have followed from its
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 1 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

acquisition. The dispute has remained in litigation for decades, passing
through successive proceedings before this Court and the statutory
authorities without any final resolution. The present petition, instituted by
Sohan Singh’s son and now pursued through his legal representative, seeks
restitution for that loss, principally by allotment of alternative land or, in the
alternative, monetary relief.
Facts leading to the petition
2. Following the Partition, Sohan Singh was recognised as a displaced
th
person having a verified claim under the rehabilitation legislation. On 17
December, 1960, he participated in an auction conducted by the Ministry of
Rehabilitation under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation
1
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, in respect of land forming part of the
compensation pool as evacuee property. His bid for three parcels of
agricultural land situated in Village Okhla was accepted. One of them was
Khasra No. 387/311, measuring 4 bighas and 14 biswas.
3. The total price of ₹1,375 was adjusted against compensation due on
Sohan Singh’s verified claim. The Sale Certificate issued in March 1963
recorded the auction, payment of the consideration by adjustment, and
th
declared him to be the purchaser with effect from 9 June, 1962. Its
schedule included Khasra Nos. 398/311/2, 387/311 and 469/393/311.
4. Before the auction, however, the declaration of the land as evacuee
property was already under challenge. Abdul Rehman and the other recorded
th
owners had preferred appeals against that declaration. By order dated 9
June, 1960, the appeals were remanded to the Authorised Deputy Custodian
with directions to conduct further enquiries, record the evidence produced
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 2 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

by the appellants, and decide the matter afresh.
th
5. By an order dated 30 December, 1961, the Authorised Deputy
Custodian considered oral depositions, the Jamabandi for 1943-44 and 1947-
48, Khasra Girdawari entries from 1944 onwards, municipal tax documents
and police reports obtained from Delhi, Bulandshahr and Meerut. He found
that neither the appellants nor any member of their families had migrated to
Pakistan or intended to do so. The revenue record continued to show them as
owners and in possession through their cultivators. He accordingly held that
they were the owners of the properties, including Khasra No. 387/311, and
directed their release.
6. The auction in favour of Sohan Singh had thus taken place while the
restoration proceedings were pending. More importantly, by the time the
th
sale in his favour became effective on 9 June, 1962, the property had
th
already been released by the competent authority on 30 December, 1961.
The Department nevertheless proceeded to issue the Sale Certificate and
thereafter caused Sohan Singh’s name to be entered in the revenue record
through Mutation No. 626.
th
7. Sohan Singh died on 15 January, 1991. Thereafter, the name of his
son, Harbir Singh Sawhney, the original Petitioner, was entered in the
revenue records in his place vide Mutation No. 1337.
8. In 1998, Khasra No. 387/311 was acquired for construction of the
Noida Toll Bridge. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
th
Act, 1894 was issued on 20 April, 1998, possession was taken by invoking
the urgency provisions, and Award No. 6/1999-2000 was made. Since the
th
Petitioner’s name appeared in the acquisition record, notices dated 17

1
“1954 Act”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 3 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

th
September, 1998 and 25 November, 1999 were issued to him in connection
with payment of compensation. He wrote to the Land Acquisition Collector
th th th
on 13 October, 1998, 15 December, 1999 and 6 December, 2001 seeking
its release.
9. The amount was not paid to him. Instead, after a corrigendum was
made to the acquisition record, the compensation was disbursed in 2003 to
th
the persons claiming under the restoration order dated 30 December, 1961.
10. The Petitioner states that he first received a copy of the restoration
order in 2004, while pursuing his claim before the Land Acquisition
Collector. He then learnt that, despite the Sale Certificate issued to his father
and the long-standing mutation entries in their favour, the land had already
been restored before the Sale Certificate was issued.
Earlier proceedings before this Court
11. The Petitioner instituted W.P.(C) 17078/2004. His principal relief was
payment of the acquisition compensation. In the alternative, he sought
equivalent land and such other directions as would place him in the position
in which he would have stood had the sale made by the Government been
honoured.
12. In its counter-affidavit, the Land Acquisition Department
acknowledged the auction and the Sale Certificate, but stated that the land
had been released in favour of the original owners and that compensation
had accordingly been paid to them.
th
13. On 13 April, 2005, counsel appearing for the Land Acquisition
Department stated before the Division Bench that the Department had
decided to revoke the payment order, recall the amount from the private
respondents and refer the dispute to the court of competent jurisdiction
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 4 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of that statement, the
Petitioner did not press the reliefs and withdrew the petition. The
Respondents were directed to abide by their statement and to proceed
expeditiously after complying with the principles of natural justice.
14. Recovery proceedings were thereafter initiated against the persons
who had received the compensation. They filed C.M. Nos. 4066-4068/2007
th
before the Division Bench, seeking recall of the order dated 13 April, 2005,
principally on the ground that they had not been afforded an opportunity of
st
hearing. By order dated 1 October, 2007, the Court clarified that any action
taken pursuant to the earlier order would be without prejudice to the rights
and contentions of all parties, and that any person aggrieved by such action
would be at liberty to pursue the remedies available in law. The order did
not adjudicate either the title to the land or the Petitioner’s substantive
entitlement to the acquisition compensation.
15. The Petitioner also initiated contempt proceedings. Those proceedings
ended with a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to act upon the
statement made before the Division Bench. Even thereafter, neither was the
proposed reference brought to fruition nor were the competing rights
determined.
16. In December 2010, the restored owners approached the Chief
Settlement Commissioner seeking cancellation of the 1963 Sale Certificate.
The Petitioner appeared in those proceedings and sought relief on the
strength of the Sale Certificate and the earlier orders of this Court.
th
17. By order dated 11 June, 2014, the Chief Settlement Commissioner
held that, after the enactment of the Displaced Persons Claims And Other
Laws Repeal Act, 2005, he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 5 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

preferred by the restored owners. The order nevertheless expressly recorded
the error committed by the Department in issuing the Sale Certificate:
“It is undisputed that the land of appellant has been restored by the
Authorized Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30/12/1961. The
Department has committed an error by issuing Sales Certificate on
25/04/1963 in favour of Sh. Sohan Singh Sawhney completely ignoring the
fact that land of the appellant has been restored on 30/12/1961.”

18. Despite this finding, the Petitioner’s claim was also rejected on the
ground that the proceedings involved disputed questions of fact requiring
evidence. The present petition followed.
19. During its pendency, Harbir Singh Sawhney died. The proceedings
are now being pursued by his legal representative.
Submissions-in brief
20. Mr. Rajat Aneja, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the
auction was conducted by the Government itself; the bid was accepted; the
entire consideration was adjusted against compensation due on Sohan
Singh’s verified claim; and a formal Sale Certificate was issued. The
Department thereafter mutated his name and continued to treat Sohan Singh,
and later the original Petitioner, as owner. Even at the stage of acquisition,
notices for receiving compensation were issued to the Petitioner.
21. It is argued that the order of restoration was never communicated to
Sohan Singh and no opportunity was afforded to him before rights created
by the auction were displaced. The subsequent alteration of the revenue and
acquisition records, without notice to the Petitioner, is also assailed.
22. Mr. Aneja emphasises that the Department has itself admitted its
error. The Petitioner and his father were not responsible for the same and
cannot be made to bear its consequence. Reliance is placed upon Union of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 6 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

2
India v. Qayyum Khan , to submit that where property is dealt with
inconsistently by different arms of the Government, the Court may mould
restitutive relief and grant alternative land.
23. It is further submitted that the Petitioner withdrew the earlier writ
petition only because the Department represented that the compensation
would be recalled and the dispute referred under Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The Respondents, having failed to carry that process to its
conclusion, cannot rely upon the withdrawal to defeat the claim.
24. The Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the land had been
th
restored on 30 December, 1961 and was no longer available in the
compensation pool when the sale became effective. The Sale Certificate
could not convey a better title than the Government possessed. It is
submitted that compensation was therefore paid to the persons recognised as
owners under the restoration order.
25. The Department also maintains that neither the 1954 Act nor the
Rules confer upon an auction purchaser a right to alternative land in these
circumstances.
Questions arising for determination
26. The controversy gives rise to the following questions:
th
i. Whether, notwithstanding the restoration order dated 30 December,
th
1961, the Petitioner can rely upon the auction held on 17 December, 1960
and the Sale Certificate subsequently issued in favour of Sohan Singh to
claim the acquisition compensation for Khasra No. 387/311 as its owner;
ii. What is the effect of the earlier proceedings before this Court, and
whether they either foreclose the present claim or require the parties, at this

2
2009 SCC OnLine Del 839
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 7 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

stage, to be relegated to proceedings under Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894;
iii. Whether the statutory auction, adjustment of the consideration and
issuance of the Sale Certificate, followed by the Respondents’ inability to
honour the transaction, give rise to an enforceable claim of restitution
against the State; and
iv. If such a claim is established, what form the relief should take:
allotment of alternative land, payment of the present market value, refund of
the original consideration with interest, or monetary restitution measured
with reference to the compensation determined upon acquisition of the land.
Statutory framework
27. The auction was held under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. Section 8 permitted compensation payable to a
displaced person to be satisfied by sale of property from the compensation
pool and adjustment of the purchase money against the compensation due to
him. Section 20 authorised the managing officer to transfer property from
the pool by public auction or otherwise.
28. Section 20A is also relevant. Where an evacuee or heir was entitled to
restoration under Section 16 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act,
1950, but physical restoration was not expedient or practicable because the
property was in occupation of a displaced person “or otherwise”, the Central
Government could transfer another property from the compensation pool of
approximately the same value or pay cash having regard to the value of the
property. Once that was done, the claimant’s interest in the original property
stood extinguished.
29. Section 20A does not directly confer a corresponding right upon every
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 8 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

auction purchaser whose sale later fails. It was enacted for the benefit of an
applicant entitled to restoration. Its relevance here is nevertheless evident.
Parliament recognised that administration of the compensation pool could
create competing claims of innocent persons and that, in such a case, the
answer need not be to displace one claimant in favour of another. The
statutory scheme placed the burden of providing an equivalent property or
monetary substitute upon the compensation pool.
30. In Abdul Qadir v. Managing Officer-cum-Assistant Custodian of
3
Evacuee Property , the Supreme Court considered Section 20-A where the
property sought to be restored had meanwhile been sold by the Custodian to
a displaced person. The Court held that, in such circumstances, it was just
and proper to refuse restoration and pay compensation to the restoration
claimant.
Effect of the auction and the restoration order
31. The Petitioner’s principal submission proceeds on the premise that
th
title passed with the auction on 17 December, 1960 and that the property
could not thereafter have been restored. That premise cannot be accepted.
32. A declaration that a person is the highest bidder does not by itself
complete a sale under the rehabilitation law. The bid is subject to approval,
the purchase price must be realised and the sale must become absolute. In
4
Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram , the Supreme Court held that title passes when
the full price is paid and the sale is confirmed. The sale certificate, though
issued later, evidences the completed transaction and relates back to the date
on which the sale became absolute.

3
(1980) 1 SCC 146
4
AIR 1965 SC 1994
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 9 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

33. The position was restated in Saraswati Devi v. Delhi Development
5
Authority . The Supreme Court held that approval of the highest bid creates
a binding contract of sale, while title passes upon payment of the full
purchase price. The transfer is formally completed by issuance of the sale
certificate. Although a date specified in the certificate may be treated as the
effective date of purchase, the crucial date for transfer of ownership remains
the date on which the full purchase price was paid.
34. Under Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and
Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the fall of the hammer did not by itself
complete the sale. The highest bid remained subject to approval by the
competent authority, and title would pass only upon the full purchase price
being paid or adjusted. The Sale Certificate thereafter issued was the formal
evidence of the completed transfer.
35. In the present case, the Sale Certificate records that Sohan Singh’s bid
th
at the auction held on 17 December, 1960 had been accepted and that the
consideration of ₹1,375 had been paid by adjustment against the
compensation due on his verified claim. It then declares that he:
th
“has been declared the purchaser of the said property, w.e.f. 9 day of
JUNE, 1962.”
36. No order approving the bid, letter of adjustment or other
contemporaneous document has been produced to show that the full
purchase price stood realised and the sale became absolute before the date of
th
restoration i.e., 30 December, 1961. There is also no material on record to
th
establish that the statutory sale became absolute before 9 June, 1962. The
Sale Certificate itself declares Sohan Singh to be the purchaser with effect

5
(2013) 3 SCC 571
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 10 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

from that date. In the absence of any contemporaneous record showing an
th
earlier completion of the sale, 9 June, 1962 must, for the purposes of the
present proceedings, be treated as the date on which the purchase took
effect.
37. By then, the Authorised Deputy Custodian had already restored and
th
released Khasra No. 387/311 by the order dated 30 December, 1961. The
property was consequently no longer available for transfer from the
compensation pool when the sale in favour of Sohan Singh became absolute.
The restoration order was not a summary administrative entry. It followed
remand, further evidence and an enquiry into whether the recorded owners
had ever migrated. It recorded a clear finding that they had not migrated,
remained owners and continued in possession through their cultivators. That
order was never set aside.
6
38. In Dr. Rajendra Prakash Sharma v. Gyan Chandra , the Supreme
Court held that only property which lawfully formed part of the
compensation pool could be transferred under Section 20 of the 1954 Act.
Property which had never acquired the character of evacuee property could
not be validly sold under that provision. The facts here are different. Khasra
No. 387/311 was initially available under the rehabilitation scheme, but had
been released and restored by the competent authority before the sale in
favour of Sohan Singh became effective. The relevance of Rajendra
Prakash Sharma is therefore confined to the statutory premise that the
power of transfer under Section 20 extends only to property lawfully
available in the compensation pool.
39. The mutation entries made first in favour of Sohan Singh and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 11 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

thereafter in favour of the original Petitioner cannot cure the absence of title.
A mutation entry is made for fiscal purposes and neither creates nor
extinguishes title. The notices issued to the Petitioner during the acquisition
proceedings likewise did not amount to an adjudication or recognition of
ownership. They are relevant in showing that the authorities continued to
treat him as a person interested in the land and reasonably explaining his
continued understanding that the statutory sale remained recognised. They
th
could not, however, negate the legal effect of the restoration order dated 30
December, 1961.
40. The grievance that Sohan Singh was not heard in the restoration
proceedings does not advance his case. Those proceedings were already
pending and had been remanded for enquiry before the auction. Even if it is
assumed that notice ought to have been given to him thereafter, that
omission cannot alter the legal effect of the restoration order or render the
subsequent transfer of Khasra No. 387/311 valid. At best, it may bear upon
the relief available against the Government.
41. The compensation paid to the restored owners therefore cannot be
redirected to the Petitioner on the footing that he was owner on the date of
acquisition. The Sale Certificate, insofar as it included Khasra No. 387/311,
did not convey title. That, however, does not end the matter. The question
that remains is what relief is due to an innocent auction purchaser who was
issued a formal certificate for property the Government had already released.
Effect of the earlier proceedings
th
42. The order dated 13 April, 2005 did not adjudicate either the
Petitioner’s title or his entitlement to the acquisition compensation. It

6
(1980) 4 SCC 364
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 12 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

recorded the statement made on behalf of the Land Acquisition Department
that the payment made to the restored owners would be recalled and the
competing claims referred for determination under Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act. In view of that statement, the Petitioner did not press the
reliefs sought in the writ petition. The position was made still clearer by the
st
subsequent order dated 1 October, 2007, which directed that any action
taken pursuant to the earlier order would be “without prejudice to the rights
and contentions of every party.” The contempt proceedings which followed
were concerned with enforcement of the course recorded in the order dated
th
13 April, 2005; they did not adjudicate the underlying rights of the parties.
43. The present petition is therefore not barred by res judicata or by the
withdrawal of W.P.(C) 17078/2004. The Petitioner accepted the proposal
given by the Department and gave up that round of litigation because he was
told that the payment would be recalled and the competing claims would be
placed before the competent court. The Respondents cannot derive an
advantage from their failure to complete the very process on the strength of
which the petition was withdrawn.
44. The reliefs sought in the earlier writ petition remain relevant to the
form of restitution. There, the Petitioner’s primary claim was for acquisition
compensation; alternative land was claimed only as a fallback. This does not
limit the Court’s power to mould relief, but it shows that monetary
restitution linked to the acquisition best reflects the position the Petitioner
would have occupied had the statutory sale been capable of being honoured.
45. The course contemplated in 2005 was suitable while the competing
claims to compensation remained unresolved. The Land Acquisition
Collector was to recall the amount and place the dispute before the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 13 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

competent court under Section 30. That never happened. More than two
decades later, the compensation remains with the restored owners, and the
Department’s error in including Khasra No. 387/311 in the Sale Certificate
stands recorded. The issue can no longer be approached only as one of
apportionment. The Government’s responsibility for having purported to sell
property which was no longer available for transfer must also be addressed.
46. A reference under Section 30 could decide who was entitled to a
particular acquisition amount. It would not address the Respondents’
restitutive liability for a statutory sale which failed because the property had
already been released. Sending the parties back now would only revive a
process left incomplete for two decades, without materially advancing the
resolution of the dispute.
47. The material facts necessary to decide the present petition are not in
dispute. The auction, the restoration order, the Sale Certificate, adjustment
of the consideration, mutation entries, acquisition of the land, and
disbursement of the acquisition compensation to the restored owners are all
evidenced by official records. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has also
recorded the Department’s error in issuing the Sale Certificate after the land
had been restored. The legal consequences of these documents can be
determined without oral evidence. The rejection of the Petitioner’s claim on
the ground that the parties had raised disputed assertions therefore failed to
address the undisputed documentary core of the matter. Allegations of fraud
and collusion were undoubtedly levelled against Sohan Singh, but no
competent authority or court returned any such finding. Those allegations
cannot now be treated as established or relied upon to defeat the Petitioner’s
claim for restitution.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 14 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

The Petitioner’s right to restitution
48. The finding that title did not pass to the Petitioner does not reduce his
claim to a bare refund of the nominal consideration adjusted in 1960.
49. The transaction was not a private bargain between individuals. The
Ministry of Rehabilitation invoked statutory power, invited bids, accepted
Sohan Singh’s bid, adjusted the consideration against compensation due on
his verified claim and issued a formal Sale Certificate under its seal. The
Department caused his name to be mutated and allowed that entry to subsist.
After his death, the original Petitioner’s name was entered in the revenue
record. The Land Acquisition Collector thereafter issued notices inviting the
Petitioner to receive compensation.
50. There is no suggestion that Sohan Singh concealed the restoration
order, influenced the auction, or knew that the land had ceased to be
available when the Sale Certificate was issued. The record instead shows a
failure of coordination within the administration. One authority restored the
property; another proceeded with the sale; and the error remained embedded
in the public record for decades.
51. The State cannot acknowledge that its own authority sold property
which was no longer available, retain the benefit of the consideration
adjusted against the displaced person’s claim, and then leave the purchaser
without land or meaningful recompense. That result would transfer the entire
burden of an official mistake to a person who neither caused it nor had the
means to discover it.
52. Qayyum Khan concerned the converse situation. Property of a person
wrongly treated as an evacuee was restored by the Government, but had
meanwhile been sold to innocent purchasers. The Division Bench held that
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 15 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

Article 226 conferred ample power to mould a restitutive remedy and
ultimately directed allotment of alternative land to the original owner. The
decision rests on the principle that where inconsistent actions of the State
have created rights in favour of innocent persons, the State must provide a
remedy rather than compel one innocent party to bear the loss caused by the
administration.
53. The power of restitution is not confined to Section 144 of the Code of
7
Civil Procedure. In Kavita Trehan v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. , the
Supreme Court held that Section 144 incorporates only a part of the general
law and the jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every Court. The
object of restitution is to restore the person who has suffered the wrong, as
nearly as possible, to the position which he would have occupied but for the
wrongful act.
54. The Court is not precluded from granting monetary relief merely
because the Petitioner’s claim arises from a statutory sale. This was not a
private contract between individuals. The Ministry of Rehabilitation, acting
under the 1954 Act, conducted the auction, adjusted the consideration
against Sohan Singh’s verified claim and issued a Sale Certificate for land
which, by then, had already been restored. These facts are borne out by
official records, and the Department has acknowledged the error. The relief
now granted is therefore not an award of disputed private-law damages. It is
a public law remedy under Article 226 for the consequences of an admitted
administrative wrong. The plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 is available
8
in such circumstances.

7
(1994) 5 SCC 380
8
ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 16 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

55. The repeal of the 1954 Act and the allied rehabilitation laws in 2005
does not preclude this Court from examining the consequences of action
taken while that regime was in force. The relief granted here is neither a
statutory benefit under the repealed enactments nor a revival of proceedings
under them. It is relief under Article 226 for the consequences of the
Respondents’ unlawful act in issuing a Sale Certificate in respect of land
which had already been restored and was no longer available for transfer.
Form and measure of relief
56. The Petitioner seeks alternative land measuring 4 bighas and 14
biswas, preferably of equivalent present value. That relief cannot be granted.
57. First, the 1954 Act and the Rules do not confer upon an auction
purchaser, whose sale fails in these circumstances, an enforceable right to
another parcel of land. Section 20A authorised substitution of property or
cash for an evacuee or heir entitled to restoration. It cannot be transposed as
a statutory entitlement in favour of every unsuccessful auction purchaser.
58. Second, Qayyum Khan does not lay down that alternative land must
invariably be allotted whenever the Government has wrongly dealt with
property. There, the claimant was the original owner whose property had
been erroneously taken over and sold. The direction for alternative land
followed the particular history of that case and the impossibility of restoring
property already transferred to innocent purchasers. Here, the Petitioner
derives his claim as an auction purchaser and the sale never became
effective before restoration.
59. Third, alternative land does not correspond to the loss that requires
redress. Had the sale in favour of Sohan Singh validly taken effect, Khasra
No. 387/311 would nevertheless have been acquired in 1998 for the Noida
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 17 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

Toll Bridge, entitling him to acquisition compensation. Restitution should
therefore reflect that lost monetary benefit, rather than take the form of
allotment of another parcel of land today.
60. The claim for present market value encounters the same difficulty. It
assumes that the Petitioner would have continued to hold the land
notwithstanding its acquisition in 1998. That assumption cannot be
sustained. Once the land stood acquired, the relevant economic consequence
would have been the compensation payable on acquisition, not its value as
privately held land more than twenty-five years later.
61. A refund of the proportionate part of ₹1,375, even with interest,
would not provide meaningful restitution. Such a remedy might have
sufficed had the error been corrected at the time. Instead, the Government
issued the Sale Certificate, allowed the revenue entries to remain, and later
treated the Petitioner as a person interested in the acquisition proceedings.
The loss is therefore not confined to the purchase price attributable to
Khasra No. 387/311; it includes the monetary benefit which ownership
would have yielded upon acquisition. Restitution must reflect that loss.
62. The original position can no longer be restored in kind. The Court
must therefore adopt the nearest lawful and objective monetary measure of
the loss.
63. The acquisition award provides that measure. Had the sale in favour
of Sohan Singh validly taken effect, Khasra No. 387/311 would nevertheless
have been acquired in 1998, and ownership would have yielded the
compensation payable in respect of that land under Award No. 6/1999-2000.
The award concerns the same land and the same acquisition, and provides an
objective measure of the monetary benefit that was lost. It avoids both the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 18 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

inadequacy of refunding the 1960 consideration and the excess of awarding
present market value.
64. This does not amount to a declaration that the Petitioner owned the
land or was entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The
acquisition compensation is used only as the measure of restitution for the
consequences of the Government having purported to sell property which
was no longer available for transfer. The payment already made to the
restored owners is not reopened. The Petitioner’s remedy lies independently
against the Respondents.
65. The restitution amount shall therefore be equivalent to the total
amount actually disbursed in respect of Khasra No. 387/311 pursuant to
Award No. 6/1999-2000, including market value, additional amount,
solatium, statutory interest and any other statutory component forming part
of that disbursement.
66. The Petitioner was deprived of that monetary equivalent from the
dates on which the amounts were disbursed to the restored owners. The
sums determined under paragraph 67 shall therefore carry simple interest at
9% per annum from the respective dates of disbursement until payment.
This interest is awarded as part of restitution and not under Section 34 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Conclusion and operative directions
67. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part, in the following
terms:
th
i. No interference is called for with the order dated 30 December, 1961
insofar as it concerns Khasra No. 387/311. The relief granted to the
Petitioner under this judgment shall be independent of, and shall not be
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 19 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

made contingent upon, recall or recovery of the compensation already
disbursed to the restored owners under Award No. 6/1999-2000.
ii. Insofar as Khasra No. 387/311, measuring 4 bighas and 14 biswas, is
concerned, the Petitioner cannot rely upon the Sale Certificate to displace
th
the restoration order dated 30 December, 1961 or to claim the acquisition
compensation as owner of the land. Nothing in this judgment affects any
rights relating to the other properties included in the Sale Certificate.
th
iii. The order dated 11 June, 2014 passed by the Chief Settlement
Commissioner is set aside only to the extent that it rejects the Petitioner’s
claim for consequential relief on the ground that the matter involved
disputed questions. Its determination regarding the maintainability of the
appeal preferred by the restored owners is left untouched.
iv. The prayer for allotment of alternative land or payment of the present
market value of Khasra No. 387/311 is declined. The Petitioner shall instead
be entitled to monetary restitution in the manner set out below.
v. Within four weeks, the concerned Land Acquisition Collector shall
prepare and furnish to the substituted Petitioner, Respondent No. 1 and
Respondent No. 3 a certified computation setting out:
a. the total amount disbursed under Award No. 6/1999-2000 in respect
of Khasra No. 387/311, measuring 4 bighas and 14 biswas;
b. the components comprised in that amount, including market value,
additional amount, solatium, interest and other statutory additions, if any;
and
c. the date or dates on which the respective amounts were disbursed to
the restored owners or their successors.
vi. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall ensure payment to the estate of Harbir
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 20 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11

Singh Sawhney, through the substituted Petitioner, Harashpal Singh
Sawhney, of an amount equal to the total sum so disbursed, together with
simple interest at 9% per annum on each component from the date of its
disbursement until payment.
vii. The entire amount shall be paid within twelve weeks from the date of
this judgment. The allocation of liability between Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
is left to them and shall neither postpone payment nor require the substituted
Petitioner to pursue the authorities separately.
viii. If payment is not made within the period of twelve weeks, the rate of
interest on the outstanding amount shall stand enhanced from 9% to 12% per
annum, simple, from the expiry of that period until actual payment.
ix. No separate refund of the auction consideration shall be payable in
addition to the monetary restitution directed above.
x. Upon payment of the amount directed above, all claims of the estate
of the deceased Petitioner arising from the inclusion of Khasra No. 387/311
in the Sale Certificate shall stand satisfied.
68. Having regard to the prolonged proceedings which the Petitioner was
required to pursue on account of an error originating in the Respondents’
own records and statutory transaction, the Petitioner shall also be entitled to
costs quantified at ₹50,000. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall jointly ensure
payment of the costs within the period stipulated above.
69. The writ petition is disposed of along with the pending applications, if
any.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 31, 2026
nk
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5764/2014 Page 21 of 21

Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:31.08.2026
20:07:11