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

1969 Supreme(SC) 334

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Mohammad Hanif
Versus
The State of Assam and another
Advocates appeared
B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (P.K. Ghosh, Advocate, with him), for Appellant.
Niren De, Attorney-General for India, (Naunit Lal and S.N. Choudhary, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
For the Appellant :Mir Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Owais Geelani, GA.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Land on leased - Possession of land - High Court dismissed writ petition of appellant holding that case involved disputed questions of title that remedy of appellant was to file a suit in a civil Court and a petition under Article 226 of Constitution was not maintainable - Document of lease was executed by Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills - March, 1909 Capt, Manley sold his right and title in land to Messrs - Whether respondent was entitled to resume land by virtue of clause V of lease by Secretary of State for India in favour of Capt - Held, It is true that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested in High Court not for purpose of declaring private rights of parties but for purpose of ensuring that law of land is implicitly obeyed and that various Tribunals and public authorities are kept within limits of their jurisdiction - As a matter of history Court of King s Bench was held to be coram rege ipso and was required to perform quasi-governmental functions - theory267 of English Law is that King himself superintends due course of justice through his own Court-preventing cases of usurpation of jurisdiction and insisting on vindication of public rights and protecting liberty of subjects by speedy and summary interposition - In other words, it is a remedy in public law - But as already pointed out appellant in present case is not merely attempting to enforce his contractual rights but important constitutional issues have been raised on behalf of Appellant - Appeal allowed.

Judgment

Ramaswami, J.--This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland dated 22nd April, 1966 in Civil Rule No. 35 of 1963 whereby the High Court by a majority judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

The land in dispute was originally located in the State of Myllicm in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. This land was leased out in perpetuity to the British Government by Khasi Land owners Thholyomawrie and U. Mongormawrie by a deed of lease C . A. No. 1378 of 1966. executed on 4th November, 1874. On 1st April, 1907 the Secrertay of State for India on behalf of the British Crown made a settlement of the land with Capt. E.M. Manley for 99 years on a premium of Rs. 716-8-9 and annual revenue of Rs. 35-13-3. The document of lease was executed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills. On 18th March, 1909 Capt, Manley sold his right and title in the land to Messrs. Jamatullah & Sons. Subsequent to the sale Messrs. Jamatullah & Sons constructed three houses on the land, known as Cedar Lodge , Cryptomaria and Eldorado . The appellant is the successor of Messrs. Jamatullah. & Sons. Out of the three buildings, the appellant has been living in Eldorado and the other two buildings have been given on rent to the Government of Assam. Cryptomaria is occupied by one of the Ministers of the Government of Assam and Cedar Lodge" has been occupied by the offices of the Electricity Board. Clause V of the lease in favour of Capt. Manley reads as follows :

"If the site, or any part of it, is required for public purposes (including the maintenance or alteration of public aqueducts), it may be resumed by Government. In this case the lessee will be entitled to receive such compensation, calculated according to the spirit of the Land Acquisition Act, as fairly represents the actual value of the land and the buildings upon it. The amount of the compensation shall be determined by the Deputy Commissioner subject to an appeal to the Commissioner."

On 18th September, 1959 the Deputy Commissioner of Khasi and Jaintia Hills served a notice of resumption on the appellant purporting to exercise the right of the Government under clause V of the lease. The appellant thereafter moved the High Court of Assam in Civil Rule No. 119 of 1959 challenging the validity of the order of resumption. By a majority the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant holding that the rights and obligations springing from the contract of lease should be decided by the ordinary civil Courts and it is not proper for the High Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Soon after the decision of the High Court there was a proposal for a compromise between the parties and the Government agreed to drop the resumption proceedings on certain terms and conditions. But it was alleged that the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise proposal and a fresh order of resumption was, therefore, made by the Government on 15th March, 1963 and a sum of Rs. 59,965 was determined as compensation payable to the appellant. The notice of resumption dated 15th March, 1963 is to the following effect:

WHEREAS a plot of land in Shillong measuring more or less 4.77 acres within the boundaries specified in the Schedule below was originally leased by the Secretary of State for India to Captain E.M. Manley by a deed of lease dated 9th December, 1907 and mutated in the name of Sri Mohammad Haniff of Police Bazar, Shillong subject to the terms and conditions specified in the said deed of lease :

AND WHEREAS the Governor of Assam is satisfied that it is necessary to resume the aforesaid plot of land with houses standing thereon for providing suitable accommodation to the Government Offices and the Minister of Government, which are hereby declared to be a public purpose.

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause V of the aforementioned deed of lease,


















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