SC Asks Dilip Kumar To Deposit 20Cr To Get Back His Land Given To Developer [Read Judgment]

The ageing thespian, Dilip Kumar, has won back his property in the posh Pali Hill area in the suburbs of Bandra, with the Supreme Court ruling in his favour. But the Supreme Court asked Kumar to deposit Rs. 20 crore with the apex court registry, after which the developers will hand him over the 2,412 sq. yd in Pali Hill in the village of Dand, Bandra.

The Court asked the developers, to whom Kumar had given his property for construction, to restore his possession over the property in the presence of Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, or any of his nominee police officer.

The yesteryear superstar of Bollywood had moved court after the developer, M/s Prajita, insisted on specific performance of the agreement executed in June, 2006, even as the deadline of the agreement was sometime in 2008.

The actor had offered to pay Rs. 20 crore to bring the dispute to an end and get his land back.

He had entered into an agreement dated June 23, 2006, with two companies -- M/s Sharyans Resources Private Limited and Goldbeam Construction Private Limited. M/s Prajita, the respondents in the case had stepped into the shoes of Sharyans vide a deed of assignment. The construction on the said plot of land was to be completed within 24 months from the date of issue of commencement certificate.

However, even on date, the Supreme Court noted, “no construction worth mentioning at all is made, not to mention about completing the construction”.

Before the Supreme Court, M/s Prajita insisted on specific performance of the agreement but the apex court felt it would not be just and suggested settlement.

Appearing for Kumar, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Ruby Singh Ahuja, partner at Karanjawala & Co., told the apex court that he has so far received Rs. 8.5 crores approximately from Prajita and its predecessor in interest and that he was willing to pay an amount of Rs. 20 crores to Prajita in order to have an undisturbed possession and peaceful enjoyment of the property in question.

He also informed the court that Prajita has posted armed guards around the property in question preventing Kumar from entering the property.

Prajita's counsel, senior advocate P. Chidambaram said they could not accept the terms of Kumar and that the armed guards were only for the purpose of securing the property from any encroachment.

“The appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs. 20 crores by demand draft to the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today and intimate the same to Prajita. Upon the receipt of such intimation, Prajita shall withdraw all the security personnel deployed by it and hand over possession of the property in question within a period of seven days from the date of the receipt of the above-mentioned intimation to the appellant in the presence of the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai or any other senior police officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to be nominated by the Commissioner of Police,” ordered a bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.

The court directed further that “the Commissioner of Police or his nominee shall draw a Panchnama of the fact of the handing over of the property by Prajita to the appellant and file the same in the Registry of this Court within a week from the date of the handing over of the possession. Upon the filing of the Panchnama with the Registry of this Court, Prajita shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs. 20 crores...”

On Prajita insisting on specific performance of the agreement, the bench said, “In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that permitting the continuance of the suit for specific performance of the agreement which is more than a decade old against a person from whom Prajita secured the development rights of the property in dispute which ultimately would enable Prajita to 25 per cent of the monetary value of the development potential as against the right of the appellant who is entitled for 75 per cent of the monetary value of the development potential would be unjust.”

Read the Judgment Here