SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY AND ANR.versusAPPOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITALS LTD. & ORS.

                     [2014] 8 S.C.R. 949


        SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY AND ANR.                                A
                           v.
   APPOLLO GLENEAGLES HOSPITALS LTD. & ORS.
         (Civil Appeal Nos.6683-6684 of 2014)
                        JULY 23, 2014
                                                                    B
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
                A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

      Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 - s.10(3) -
Compensation, utilization charges, interest and costs - Grant       C
of - 11.659 cottah of /and-locked land purportedly owned by
appellants - Meanwhile the 1976 Act came into effect - Land
notified u/s. 10(3) of the 1976 Act - State Government claimed
the land as its property and handed over the same to first-
Respondent Hospital on lease for 30 years with option for           D
renewal under lease deed dated 21. 06. 1991 - First-
Respondent Hospital paid premium of Rs.94,41,300 - The
lease deed also obligated payment of 10% of the said sum
by way of annual lease rent - Writ petition filed by appellants
challenging the Notification issued under the 1976 Act -            E
Allowed by Single Judge of High Court - Division Bench held
 that the hospital authority was not required to hand over actual
physical pos~ession to the State before a final declaration, if
any, was made uls.10(3); and further the hospital authority was
obliged to compensate the respondents to the extent of the          F
land, if any allowed to be retained by them, by the competent
authority under the 1976 Act and for the balance part of the
 land, the State was obliged to pay compensation - Appellants
 agreed to abide by the judgment of the Division Bench; and
also no challenge thereto at the instance of First respondent-      G
 Hospital or the State Government .; Competent Authority
 under the 1976 Act found that appellants wcfre not in
possession of any surplus land - Held: In the circumstances,
;respondent-Hospital to bear entire compensation - It is liable
                              949                                   H
    950       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A to pay the following amounts in full and final settlement of all
  the claims of appellants in respect of the land in question
  admeasuring 11.66 (11.659) cottah: a) compensation towards
  value of land@ Rs.24,04, 188 per cottah for 11.66 (11.659)
  cottah which come'S to Rs.2,80,32,832; b) interest@ 2% p.a
B for 23 years. which works out to Rs.1,28,95, 102; c) utilization
  charges@ Rs.21,500 p.a equal to Rs.4,94,500 and d) costs
  of Rs.5 lacs, thus in all amounting to a total of Rs.4, 19,22,434
  rounded off to Rs. 4, 20, 00, 000.

C       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    6683-6684 of 2014.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2009 in FMA
    No. 2393 of 2005 and FMA 2411 of 2005 of the High Court of
    Calcutta.
D
        Chander Uday Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, Pr.atap
    Venugopal, Meenakshi Chauhan, Gaurav Nair (For K. J. John
    & Co.,), Pijush K. Roy, Kakali Roy, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Avijit
    Bhattacharjee for the appearing parties.
E         The Judgment Order of the Court was delivered by

        FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFUL~, J. 1. Leave
    granted.

F       2. These appeals are directed against a common
    judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
    passed in ~:M.A. No.2393 of 2005 and F.M.A. No.2411 of 2005
    dated 08.12.2009.

       3. To briefly narrate the facts, the appeals pertain to a
G piece of land which is as on date in the possession of the first
  Respondent Appollo Gleneagles Hospitals Ltd. (hereinafter
  called "Appollo Hospitals"), which was originally owned by one
  Narayan Chandra Dutta. He stated to have sold the said lands
  to one Tilak Sundari Debi. Her title was confirmed after
H
 SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY v. APPOLLO GLENEAGLES 951
 HOSP. LTD. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

prolonged litigation in the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta   A
dated 25.07.1986 in Second Appeal No. 384 of 1967. When
the said litigation was pending, the heirs of late Tilak Sunderi
Debi sold the said lands to the present Appellants who became
the joint owners of the land consisting of 11 Katha 10 chitaks
and 25 square feets, ill all 11.659 cottah of land.                  B

      4. Be that as it may, the.Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)
 Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was brought into
 effectw.e.f. 17.02.1976. The civil litigation preferred by late Tilak
 Sundari Debi was resisted by one Orient Beverages Ltd. also
 known as Orient Properties Ltd. claiming to have acquired title C
 in respect of the said lands. At the time when proceedings
 under the Act were initiated, the said Orient Properties Ltd.,
 pursuant to the notices issued under the said Act agreed to
 surrender the lands which was the subject matter of litigation
·which ultimately cam~ to be notified under Section 10(3) of the D
 Act by Notification dated 11.05.1990. The State of West
 Bengal claimed the said lands as property of the State as from
 05.05.1990 and the Orient Properties Ltd. stated to have
 handed over possession on 28.05.1990. Thereafter, the State
 handed over the land along with adjacent lands to one M/s E
 Janapriya Hospital Corp. Ltd. pursuant to a registered lease
 deed for 30 years with option for renewal under the lease deed
 d~ted 21.06.1991. Based on the said lease deed, the Hospital
 paid a premium of Rs.94,41,300. Later on Janapriya Hospital
 Corp. Ltd. became Appollo Gleneagles, the first Respondent F
 herein. As per the lease deed the lease is to expire on 2021.
 Apart from the premium, the lease deed also obligated a
 paymerit of 10% of the said sum by way of annual lease rent.

      5. In July, 1993, the Appellants filed a writ petition being G
 C.O.No.8616(W) of 1993 challenging the ultimate Notification
 issued under the Act. An interim order was initially granted by
 the Learned Single Judge on 12.07.1993 directing the
 Respondents to maintain status quo. Subsequently, the Writ
 Petition itself came to be allowed by order dated 02.05.2005. H
    952       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   Even while the order of status quo was in operation, it appears
    that the first Respondent made some constructions and the
    Hospital came to be established.

        6. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
    Appollo Hospitals and the State of West Bengal preferred
8
    separate appeals in F.M.A. No.2393 of 2005 and F.M.A.
    No.2411 of 2005. The Division Bench by the judgment
    impugned in th~se appeals held as under in paragraph 12.1:

          "12.1 The second appellate decree might be binding only
C         upon the parties to the said proceedings. However, it is
          otherwise a judgment in rem, at least against any person
          claiming title derived from the judgment debtor. Hence.
          State deriving title by way of vesting from Orient was not
          entitled to deny the right. title and interest of the .
D         respondents in question." (underlining is ours)

        Again in paragraph 12.2 the Division Bench '!~served as
    under:

          "12.2 ....... The title was in dispute. Hence the doctrine of
E         /is pendence would apply. During the pendency of the
          second appeal, the present respondents purchased the
          interest of the then owner of the said land in question which
          was yet to be adjudi~ated upon. They stepped iflto the
          shoes of their predecessor in interest. The declaration w,as
F         made in their favour by the Division Bencn of this Court.
          Hence. the State was· obliged to proceed against them
          under the provisions of the said Act of 1976. The learned
          Single Judge rightly observed as such and we are in full.
          agreement with His Lordship on that score." (underlining
G         is ours)

        Again in paragraph,12.3 the Division eench made further
    observatiOJlS to the following effect:

          "12.3 It is true that the ~ospital was constructed by Appollp
H
SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY v. APPOLLO GLENEAGLES 953
HOSP. LTD. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    by spending huge sum. They did it at their own risk and         A
    peril as it was a lease for 30 years which is going to expire
    in 2021. The Hospital authority took that risk before
    proceeding further. Hence, the contention made by Mr.
    Mitra on that score cannot be accepted."
                                                                    B
    Further observation was made by Division Bench in
paragraph 12.4 as under:

    "12.4 We however, feel that although it is a private hospital
    it is serving people of the State giving medical services
    and it would not be proper to stop such activity at this        C
    stage. We are prompted to say so as we also find the
    respor.i_Q~nts guilty"of laches. They did not approach the
    appropriate authority at the right moment. They should have
    raised objection contemporaneously. However. such
    laches cannot take away their right to claim appropriate        D
    relief without disturbing the hospital. if possible."
    (underlining is ours)

     Ultimately the Division Bench issued the following direction
in paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2. The same are extracted as under:       E
    "13.1 The order of the learned Single Judge is thus
    modified to the extent that the hospital authority need not
    hand over actual physical possession to the State before
    a final declaration, if any, is made under Section 10 (3)
    considering the return to be submitted by the respondents       F
    in terms of the liberty granted by His Lordship to them.

    13.2 The hospital authority would be obliged to
    compensate the respondents to the extent of the land, if
    any allowed to be retained by them, by the competent            G
    authority under the said Act of 1976 and for the balance
    part of the land the State would be obliged to pay
    compensation in accordance with law.·
    •
    7. The abovesaid judgment of the Division Bench is the
                                                                    H
    954       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   subject matter of challenge in these appeals.

         8. When these appeals were moved, while issuing notice,
    this Court gave the following directions in th~ orders dated
    27.08.2012 and 05.10.2012:
B         "In the facts of the case, the concerned learned District
          Collector at Mayukh Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Salt Lake, Kolkata
          is requested to file !1is own calculations taking into
          consideration the calculations submitted by the present
          petitioner before him. For his convenience, the petitioner
c         shall remain present before him on 4th September, 2012.
          He shall be heard and understood as to what is his
          grievance and then final report may be prepared and
          submitted before us within four weeks. List the matter in
          the first week of October, 2012.
D
          "Order dated 27th August, 2012 is modified to the extent
          that. the phrase "learned District Collector" be replaced by
          the "Competent Authority" under the Urban Land (Ceiling
          & Regulation) Act, 1976. This exercise may be done by
          the learned Competent Authority within a period of six
E
          weeks. List after eight weeks."

         9. At this juncture, it will have to be noted that neither the
   first Respondent nor the State of West Bengal have chosen to
   challenge the impugned judgment before this Court. Therefore,
F the same has become final as against both of them. By virtue
  -of this Court's orders dated 27.08.2012 and 05.10.2012, the
   competent authority went into the question as to whether the
   Appellants were in possession of any surplus land under the
   provisions of 1976 Act. An order came to be passed by the
G competent authority on 30.10.2012 by which it was declared
   that the Appellants are not in possession of any surplus land in
   the agglomerated area and, therefore, the question of
   compensation to be given by the competent authority Kolkata
   under the Act does not arise. In the light of the said order, going
H by the ultimate direction of the Division Bench, it is now for the
SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY v. APPOLLO GLENEAGLES 955
HOSP. LTO:[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
 Appello Hospitals to bear the entire compensation. In other            A
 words, the Appello Hospitals is now liable to bear the
 compensation payable for the entire extent of the land namely
·11.66 cottah (11.659 cottah).

      10. Having regard to the said position and the further fact
                                                                        8
that the land in question is situated in land-locked area, even
the Appellants have no option than to accept the compensation
for the lands which is in the possession of the Appello Hospitals
right from the year 1991 when the lease deed came to be
entered as between the Appello Hospitals and the' State of
West Benga.f. Realizing the said position, both the parties             C
agreed for fixing the valuation of the lan<':ls in order to determine
the compensation. By this Court's order dated 28.01.2013, the
consensus ad idem of both the parties for the appointment of
Class-A Valuer approved by the Calcutta High Court who can
be directed to determine the value. List of the approved Valuers        D
was called for and by order dated 15.03.2013, from the list of
Class-A Valuers approved by the Calcutta High Court, Mr.
Sandip Nandi Majumdar was appointed as Valuer and he was
directed to associate the competing parties while· submitting
the report.                                                             E

     11. Pursuant to the said orders, \he Valuer submitted his
report sometime in July, 2013. Thereafter the parties took time
to examine the rep.art of the V~Juer. Copies of the report were
also directed to be furnished to the parties. After the submission      F
of the reports, parties filed their statements.

     12. From the above facts, the following factors emerge:

      a.     Appellants. are the absolute owners of 11.66
             (11.659) cottah lands situated at premises No.59,          G
             Canal Circular Road, Kolkata.

      b.     There was no surplus lands which were capable of
             being acquired under the provisions of Urban Land
             (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.
                                                                        H
    956        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A         c.    Appollo Hospitals which was put in possession of
                34, 147 square metres of la"nd pursuant to th1a
                registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991 included
                the 11.69 (11.659) cottl'!h of lands comprising of
                743.21 square metres and that Appollo Hospitals
B               is in enjoyment of this property till this date.

      . d.      The said lands, namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah are
                land-locked .lands surrounded by the.other lands for
                which the Appollo Hospitals is having a valid lease
                hold rights by virtue of the registered lease deed ..
c               dated 21.06.1991.

          e.    Inasmuch as the Appellants have agreed to abide
                by the judgment of the Division Bench and since
                there was no challenge to ttre said order at the
D               instance of Appollo Hospitals or the State of West
                Bengal, it ~as now become imperative that the
                ultimate directions issued by the Division Bench will
                have to be carried out.

          f.    By virtue of the order of the competent authority
E
                dated 30.10.2012, since Appellants were not
                holding any surplus lands in the. urban
                agglomeration, the entire extent of land, namely,
                11.66 (11.659) cottah belonged to the Appellants
                and the compensation payable for the said lands
F               will have to be borne by Appollo Hospitals alone.

       13. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we examine
  the stand of the respective parties, in the first instance, we wish
  to note the categoric stand taken by the Appellants in their
G additional affidavit dated 25.03.2014. In the said additional
  affidavit, the Appellants have accepted the value fixed by the
  approved Valuer wherein the value has been arrived at a sum
  of Rs.24,04, 188 per cottah as of 2013 (after providing land
  locked allowance). In fact according to the Valuer, when he took
H into account the three Exhibits namely, Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 the
SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY v. APPOLLO GLENEAGLES 957
HOSP. LTD. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

value per cottah was found to be Rs.25 lacs in Exhibit 5,             A
Rs.58,34, 133 in Exhibit 6 and 24,30,889 in Exhibit 7 and all
the three exhibits were issued by the certifying authority of the
State Government. The certificates were dated 05.03.2013,
10.6.2013 and 27.05.2013.
                                                                      B
      14. We heard Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for
 the Appellants and Mr. C.U. Singh Senior Advocate for the
 Appollo Hospitals, Mr. Pijush K. Roy, counsel for the 5th
 Respondent and Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, counsel for
.Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in SLP (C) No.8855 of 2010. It will be
 advantageous to refer to the additional affidavit filed on behalf    C
 of the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2013. The
 said affidavit was filed on 24.04.2014. While Exhibit 5 dated
 05.03.2Q13 was collected by the State-Respondent, Exhibits
 6 and 7 dated 10.06.2013 and 27.05.2013 respectively were
 collected by the Valuer himself. It is based on the above            D
 materials placed before by the Valuer, he ultimately arrived at
 the sum of Rs.25,04, 188 per cottah after providing the land-
 locked allowance. As stated by us earlier, the Appellants have
 stated in paragraph 13 of their additional affidavit to the effect
 "the petitioners accepted current ma"rket value of land at           E
 Rs.24,04, 188 per cottah as valued by Valuer as of 2013 (after
 providing land locked allowance)". Therefore, as far as the
 Appollo Hospitals is concerned, in their written submissions,
 there is statement to the effect that the Respondent No.1-
 hospital is in agreement that it shall pay the present market        F
 value of land at Rs.24,04, 188 per cottah as ascertained by the
 Valuer in his report of July, 2013. Therefore, as regard the value
 of the land per cottah, there is no scope for any further probe
 and, therefore, it will have to be valued at the rate of
 Rs.24,04, 188 per cottah for 11.66 (11.659) cottah of lands.         G
    15. What remains to be ascertained is the claim of the
Appellants for utilization charges, interest and costs. Insofar as
the utilization charges are concerned, according to the
Appellants they were deprived of the use of their land by the
                                                                      H
    958      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A Appello Hospitals at least from the year 1991 when the hospital
  was put in possession pursuant to the registered lease deed
  dated 21.06.1991. It is, therefore, contended that when the
  Appello Hospitals agreed to pay 10% of the value of the salami
  of land, namely, Rs.98,41,300 i.e .. sum of Rs.9,84,130 per
B annum by way of lease rent for the entire extent pf lands at least
  insofar as the Appellants' lands are concerned, they are
  entitled for normal return on the average value of land from June,
  1991. Referring to the land value which was prevailing in June,
  1991 at sum of Rs.3, 15,997 per cottah and the land value in
c June, 2013 at Rs.24,04, 188 per cottah, the average land value
  was claimed to be Rs.13,60,092.50 per cottah and on that
  basis 10% of the said value is claimed as utilization charges
  i.e. the sum of Rs.1,36,009 per annum per cottah.

       16. As against the above claim, on behalf of the Appello
D Hospitals, it is contended that what was agreed to be paid by
  way of annual lease amount at the rate of 10% on the total
  salami of land was taken into account the larger extent of 34, 147
  square metres within which the Appellant's land which was a
  small portion of 743.21 square metres. It is further stated that
E the lands were marshy lands in 1991 totally undeveloped till the
  Appello Hospitals made improvements by constructing the
  hospitals and, therefore, if at all, any utilization charges is to
  be considered, it should be the normal economic rent of 6%
  on the investmenUcapital value which would be on a sum of
F Rs.10,001 per annum.

       17. Having considered the respective submissions and
  having noted the salient factors in the case on hand, it will have
  to be borne in mind that after strenuous fight in the Court
G proceedings the rights of the Appellants came to be crystallized
  as regards their ownership in the Second Appeal No.384 of
  1967 which was decreed on 25.07.1986. That was the first
  round of litigation where the Appellants could ultimately succeed
  and establish their right of ownership over the lands in question.
H Thereafter, when they were confronted with the subsequent
 SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY v. APPOLLO GLENEAGLES 959
 HOSP. LTD. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
proceedings under the provisions of the Act, they had to launch          A
the present proceedings again by approaching the High Court
and this time by way of writ petition, in which the present
impugned order ultimately came to be passed by the Division
Bench on 08.12.2009. Therefore, for establishing their right to
their property, enormous time, energy and money has been                 B
spent by the Appellants. The right to property is protected under
Article 300A of the Constitution .. In view of the nature of the
location of the land which is in a land-locked position, the
Division Bench has rightly found that the grievance of the
Appellants can be redressed by giving directions as contained            c
in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment by which the
Respondents were directed to compensate the Appellants for
use of the lands.

        18. Keeping the above factors in mind, we are of the view
 that to formulate the basis for fixing the utilization charges the      D
  method adopted in the lease deed dated 21.06.1991 as
  between the Appollo Hospitals and the State of West Bengal
  can be followed. As per the said lease deed the Appollo
  Hospitals agreed .to pay 10% of the value of the salami land
  value, namely, Rs.98,41,300 which worked out in a sum of               E
  Rs.9,84, 130 per annum as lease rent during the period of lease,
  namely, 30 years. The total land for which the lease rent was
 ·fixed was 34, 147 square metres. Applying the very same
  formula for arriving the rental value of the lands of the Appellants
'which is 743.21 square metres, we find that the same will work          F
·out to Rs.21,355.62 per annum [(i.e.) 743.21 + 34147 x 100         =
                                  =
  2.17: 9,84,130 x 2.17 + 100 21,355.62]. On that basis, we
  are convinced that the utilization charges can be fixed by
  rounding it off to Rs.21,500. Accordingly, we hold that the
·utilization charges shall be fixed in a sum of Rs.21,500 per            (3
; annum (rounding off Rs.21,355.62 as Rs.21,500) and for a
  period of 23 years, namely, between 1991 and 2014, the
  utilization charges can be arrived at. The same comes to
  Rs.4,94,500.
                                                                         H
    960      SUP~EME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A      19. The claim of the Appellants that utilization charges
  should be at the rate of Rs.5 l~cs or on the basis of the average
  value of the land which was claimed at a sum of Rs.1,36,009
  cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, it will have to be noted that
  the Appellants will be getting the value of the entire 11.66 cottah
B of lands as per the present day market value which has been
  fixed at Rs.24,04, 188 per cottah. It cannot be lost sight that the
  value of the land in 1991 was far lower than what is now arrived
  at based on the Valuer's report which is for the year 2013. If
  the Appello Hospitals is to pay the lease rent per annum based
c on the salami, namely, the royalty value of Rs.98,41,300 it will
  be more appropriate to fix the lease rent on the very same basis
  on which it was fixed under the lease dated 21.06.1991. In that
  way, Appello Hospitals cannot also have any grievance
  inasmuch as apart from salami of Rs.98,41,300 for the land,
  they agreed to pay 10% of its value by way of lease rent for
0
  the first 30 years.

       20. We, therefore, hold that utilization charges so arrived
  at shall be in the sum of Rs.21,500 and for the period between
  1991 and 2014, namely, for 23 years. The first Respondent
E Appello hospital is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,94,500.

       21. With that we come to the next claim of the Appellants
  which is the interest payable on the value of the land now
  determined by the Valuer. Since the market value as of the
F years 2013 has 6een fixed as payable for the 11.66 (11.659)
  cottah of the lands, we find that the deprivement of the use of
  the land of the Appellants and the State is certainly ij right which
  is a Constitutional Right and the same was deprived for no fault
  of theirs. It is true that the land value has been fixed based on
G the value which was prevailing ~n the year 2013 while the
  Appollo Hospitals was put in possession of the lands in the
  year 1991 and the stand of the Hospital that the land value
  should have been fixed in 1991 though is not acceptable, the
  said stand can certainly be taken into account while considering
  the claim of the Appellants for payment of interest. Here again,
H
SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY v. APPOLLO.GLENEAGLES 961
HOSP.·LTD. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

we wish to reiterate that in the whole process, the Appellants A
have lost their property rights once and for all and on the other
hand Appollo Hospitals will get absolute ownership right in
respect of 11.66 (11.659) cottah of land which it can always
cherish and enjoy without any hindrance from any quarters.
Therefore, taking an overall view of the grievances of the B
Appellants, we are convinced that Appellants are entitled for
payment of interest though not to the extent they clal,med.

      22. According to the first Respondent even if interest is to
be granted that can only be on the value that was prevailing in C
1991 which according to the first Respondent was Rs.10,001
per cottah and on that value interest at the rate of 6% per
annum can be made. Instead, we hold that the Appellants are
entitled for a nominal interest at the rate of 2% per annum on
the total value of the land as accepted by both the parties,
namely, Rs.2,80,32,832/-. On that basis, the interest payable D
by the first Respondent will work out to a sum of Rs.1,28,95, 102
for 23 years.

      23. With that the only other claim to be considered is costs.
As stated by us earlier, the Appellants have been fighting this E
litigation by stepping into the shoes of their predecessor in
interest from the year 1960 onwards in Title Suit No. 79 of 1960
which was ultimately decreed in Second Appeal No.384 of
1967 by the decree dated 25.07 .1986. Even thereafter the
Appellants had to initiate the second round of litigation for F
ascertaining their rights as against the proceedings issued
under the provisions of the Act of 1976 which has taken another
two decades. Thereby the Appellants are knocking at the doors
of the Court for the past 54 years. Therefore, they are surely
entitled for cost of the litigation which we want to quantify in a G
lump sum of Rs.5 lacs. Accordingly, we hold that the Appellants
are entitled and the first Respondent Appollo Hospitals is liable
to pay the following amounts:

      i.    Compensation towards value of land Rs.24,04, 188
                                                                  H
    962          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A                 per cottah for 11.66 (11.659) cottah which comes
                  to Rs.2,80,32,832 (Rupees Two Crores Eighty
                  Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and
                  Thirty Two only).

          ii.     Interest at the rate of 2% per annum for 23 years
B
                  which works out to Rs.1,28,95, 102 (Rupees One
                  Crore Twenty Eight Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand
                  One Hundred and Two only).

          iii.    Utilization charges at the rate of Rs.21,500 per
c                 annum equal to Rs.4,94,500 (Rupees Four Lakhs
                  Ninety Four.Thousand Five Hundred only).

          iv.     Costs Rs.5 lacs (Rupees Five Lakhs only).

                  Total Rs.4, 19,22,434. We round it off to
D                 Rs.4,20,00,000 in all to be payable by the first
                  Respondent to the Appellants in full and final
                  settlement of all the claims of the Appellants in
                  respect of their lands admeasuring 11.66 (11.659)
                  cottah.
E
         24. Having regard to our above conclusion, we want to
    consider the various directions prayed for by the Appollo
    Hospitals in their written submissions and we accordingly, pass
    the following order:
F
          a.      The first Respondent shall deposit the sum of
                  Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General of this
                  Court within four weeks from today.

          b.      The Appellants shall make all arrangements to
G                 produce the original title deeds and specify the
                  schedule of the land and the sketch from the
                  competent authority of the revenue department and
                  furnish the same within eight weeks from this date.

H         c.      On submission of such records, by the Appellants
 SOMNATH CHAKRABORTY v. APPOLLO GLENEAGLES 963
HOSP. LTD. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
         to this court, the first Respondent shall inspect those   A
         records and express its confirmation.

    d.   On such confirmation being submitted by the first
         Respondent within two weeks of the submission of
         the records by the Appellants, within two weeks
                                                                   B
         thereafter the Appellants will execute a deed of
         conveyance of the land admeasuring about 11.66
         (11.659) cottah of land in favour of first Respondent.

    e.   All stamp duty and registration charges and other
         incidental expenses for the conveyance shall be           c
         borne by the first Respondent Appollo Hospitals.

    f.   On such registration of the conveyance deed, the
         Appellants will be at liberty to seek for release of
         Rs.4,20,00,000 with whatever interest accrued             D
         thereon.

    g.   The State of West Bengal shall direct its authorities
         to ensure that the lands involved in this appeal,
         namely, 11.66 (11.659) cottah is issued necessary
         certificate of such demarcation.                          E

    h.   The above said directions are without prejudice to
         the rights of the first Respondent hospital in relation
         to the rest of the lands which is governed by the
         registered lease deed dated 21.06.1991 as                 F
         between the first Respondent hospital and the
         State of West Bengal which is stated to be for a
         period of 30 years with provision for option for
         further renewal for additional two terms of 30 years
         each. It is needless to state that the said rights of     G'
         the first Respondent hospital under the registered
         lease 5feed dated 21.06.1991 would be governed
         by the terms and conditions contained therein in
         respect of the lands, namely, 34,147 - 743.21
                         =
         square metre 33,403. 79 square metres.
                                                                   H
    964        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A         i.    On deposit of the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with the
                Secretary General of this Court a~ per paragraph
                "a" of these directions, the Secretary General shall
                invest the same in UCO Bank initially for a period
                of six months. It shall be renewed periodicatry
B               pending further orders to be passed by this Court.

        25. With the above directions, these appeals will stand
  disposed of. However, in order to ensure compliance of the
  directions by all the parties concerned, call these appeals for
  passing final orders in the first week of December, 2014.
C However, in the meantime, if all formalities are complied with,
  it is open to the parties to mention for posting the above
  appeals for passing final orders.
    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                          Appeals disposed of