SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 294

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
29th August 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH JJ.
The Union of India and another, Appellants
Versus
Ram Kanwar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with them) for Appellant ; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. Sardar Bahadur, Advocate, with him ), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder and Co., for Respondent No. 7.

Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.B.G.K.Achar, BISHAN NARAIN, D.B.PREM, K.K.SINHA, R.N.SACH

Headnote:Property not used for the purpose it was requisitioned — owner held entitled to be requisition of such property - Defence of India rules and the provisions of this act -

       – see decision in the Union of India v. Ram Kanwar, AIR 1962 SC 247 = 1962(2) SCJ 670 = 1962(3) SCR 813; if the purpose ceased to exist, the proviso to Section 6 made it obligatory for the government to release the property. Here the flat was being used for a purpose other than for which it was requisitioned, the owners were entitled to be put in possession thereof.

       – also held that the fiction created by Section 24(2) of the Act under which the property which was subject to requisition shall be deemed to be property under Section 3 of the Act, would operate only upon the requisition already made. The fiction, could not validate any illegal act of the Government.

       

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi confirming that of a Single Judge of that High Court issuing a writ of mandamus against the Union of India directing it to restore possession of the flat requisitioned by the said Government to the respondents.

2. One Babu Ram was the owner of Flat No. 5, Agarwal Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi; respondents 1 to 6 are his sons and widow. By an order dated April 14,1943, the-Government of India requisitioned the said flat under R. 75-A (1) of the Defence of India Rules for a period of one year from April 15, 1943 to April 14, 1944. The said flat was put in the occupation of one Hardie of the Indian National Airways, The period of requisition was extended from time to time, and finally by an order dated April 2, 1946, the flat was requisitioned from April 15,1946, until further orders of the Central Government. After Mr. Hardie vacated the flat, it was allotted to other officers. Babu Ram requested the Government from time to time to de-requisition the said flat for his personal use. He represented that he was suffering from heart trouble and was continuously keeping indifferent health, that two of his sons had got married, and that in those circumstances it had become impossible for him to continue to live in their small house in a narrow lane; but the Government of India rejected his request on the ground that on surrender by the officers of the Indian National Airways it would be required for allotment to Central Government officers. Babu Ram died on October 24, 1951. It appears that four or five months in 1947 the at was vacant and thereafter it was occupied by refugees from West Pakistan. It was afterwards given to the present respondent No. 7, Triveni Kala Sangam. On November 4, 1952, respondent No. 1 again requested the Government to de-requisition the fat mainly on the ground that the said flat was not in use of the officers of the Central Government but was put in possession of Triveni Kala Sangam, which was a private dance and music school. As no reply was given to that request, the said respondent sent a reminder on June 26, 1953, and to that he received a reply to the effect that "the matter is receiving attention and further communication will follow in due course." On September 16, 1953, the Government informed the first respondent that he could execute a lease deed in favour of the Government in respect of the said flat. As the appellants did not put the respondents in possession of the said flat, they had no alternative but to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the High Court of Punjab. The petition was heard by Falshaw. J., and the learned Judge issued a writ of mandamus on October 19, 1954, directing the appellants to put the respondents in possession of the flat. Against the said order, on November 26,1954, the appellants filed a Letters Patent Appeal in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi. The appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of the said order after excluding the time taken for obtaining certified copies of the necessary documents, but more than 20 days thereafter. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the said High Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Mehar Singh. J. The learned Judges held that the appeal was filed out of time and that there was not sufficient reason for excusing the delay. They also went into the merits of the case and agreed with Falshaw, J,, that a case had been made out for issuing a writ. With the result that the appeal was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

3. Learned Attorney General, appearing for the appellants, contends that the Letters Patent Appeal, it having been filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment of Falshaw,J., was within time, and that, in any view, having regard to the fluid state of the law on the question whether the period prescribed by the Limi






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top