Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Save and except one issue, various issues raised in LPA No.415/2005, LPA No.1125/2007, LPA No.1233/2007, LPA No.134/2008, LPA No.301/2008, LPA No.381/2008, LPA No.468/2009, LPA No.581/2009, LPA No.397/2011, LPA No.635/2011 and LPA No.650/2011 were answered by a Division Bench Coram : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. and Sunil Gaur, J. vide judgment dated February 28, 2012. One question was referred to a Larger Bench, as framed in para 81 of the decision dated February 28, 2012, and the same pertains to a policy circular considered and opined upon by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported as 2005(1) AD (Delhi) 634 UOI vs. Vinay Kumar Aggarwal.

2. While referring the question, it was recorded that the same arises out of a policy guideline dated August 02, 1996. In para 84 of the order dated February 28, 2012 it is expressly recorded that notwithstanding the question of law being referred to a Larger Bench and requiring the registry to place before the Hon’ble Chief Justice the instant appeal for constitution of a Larger Bench, all learned counsel appearing in the connected appeals would be permitted to address arguments on the question of law settled and thus we had heard learned counsel for the parties who were appearing in other appeals, since the decision in the reference would impact other appeals as well.

3. Order dated July 06, 2012 passed by this Bench at the conclusion of the hearing of the question of law referred, records that notwithstanding there being an error in the order referring the question of law by recording that it arises with reference to the policy guideline dated August 02, 1996; it was noted that the reference should be to the policy guideline dated June 25, 1996 and further notwithstanding there being a difference in the language of what was recorded by the Division Bench with reference to the extracts of the policy guidelines dated August 02, 1996 and the policy guideline dated June 25, 1996, there was no material impact on the question of law settled and that even with reference to the policy guideline dated June 25, 1996, the question of law referred was correctly framed and required to be answered and that learned counsels so agreed.

4. The error of referring to the correct policy guideline, by the Division Bench, is on account of the fact that in the city of Delhi, lease-hold tenures have been conferred by various Land Administering Agencies but the subject of „Land?is under the aegis of the Union of India. The decision to convert lease-hold tenures into free-hold tenures was taken by the Union of India and the terms were notified separately by L&DO, DDA and other Land Administering Agencies; the latter were following the guidelines adopted by L&DO in letter and spirit and for unexplainable reasons they chose to separately notify the policy guidelines and as and when problems were encountered, L&DO issued clarificatory/subsequent modifications, other Land Administering Agencies followed, and this explains the existence of a policy guideline dated August 02, 1996, which in fact is issued by DDA, but inadvertently got referred to, in the reference order, as the policy guidelines issued by L&DO/Union of India. In any case, as noted by the Full Bench, and as recorded in the order dated July 06, 2012, nothing turns thereon.

5. This Bench, accordingly heard arguments on the question :

“Whether Clause 4 of the circular dated June 25, 1996 is restricted to restoration charges to be paid towards unauthorized occupation of the demised property upon the lease being determined and re-entry order passed till the date of the lease being restored and re-entry order withdrawn and does not encompass damages payable on account of misuse and/or unauthorized construction or Clause 4 means as was interpreted in Vinay Kumar Aggarwal’s case (supra).”

6. The relevant clause of the circular in question reads as under:-

“4. In this connection it is further clarified that –

(