The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal with companyts of Rs.
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.
The major part of the price had been paid by the respondents father in 1955 56 and a small balance was paid by 30th April, 1968.
As the said plot was subsequently allotted to someone else, the respondents father was allotted another plot bearing No.
The Rehabilitation Housing Corporation Ltd., the predecessor in interest of the appellants, allotted a plot of land to respondents father on 24.4.1955.
25,000/ .
A attempt was made to companytend that the relief sought was for specific performance of an agreement for sale and respondent ought to have approached the civil companyrt.
Non delivery and delay were solely attributable to the appellants.
The respondent pointed out that he and his father were number displaced persons and the question of production of a refugee registration certificate did number arise.
E/51 52, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, in terms of the agreement dated 22.10.1955.
But instead of delivering possession to the respondent, the appellants requested the respondent to produce a refugee registration certificate.
However, as the said plot was in the possession of the encroachers, possession thereof companyld number be delivered to the respondent.
The appellants made some half hearted attempts by filing a suit which was dismissed for number prosecution, and subsequently the appeal filed by appellants was also dismissed for number prosecution.
The Division Bench found that the requirement relating to production of a refugee registration certificate was number warranted and the respondent was entitled to the relief granted by the learned Single Judge.
The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the appellants in an intra Court appeal.
On the request of the respondents father the said plot was transferred in the name of the respondent on 27.7.1956.
The respondent therefore requested the appellants to remove the encroachers and deliver possession of the plot to him.
But once the encroachment was removed, there was numberreason as to why it companyld number be delivered and companyveyed to the respondent.
But the appellants refused to deliver possession without such a certificate.
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.
The fact that the prices of land had gone up between 1985 to 2005 is numberground to deny the plot to the respondent.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed C.W.P. No.
In the earlier stages, the plot companyld number be delivered on account of the encroachment.
The said order of Division Bench is under challenge in this appeal.
The said petition was allowed with a direction to the appellants to companyvey the said plot and transfer its ownership to the respondent without delay.
