Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Express Newspaper Private Limited
Versus
Union of India
Decided on, October 7, 1985
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 2 - Government of India, Act, 1935 - SECTION 290-A - Business of printing and publishing national newspaper - Notices of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease - Petitioners challenge constitutional validity notice of re entry upon forfeiture lease issued by Engineer Officer Land and Development Office New Delhi purporting to be on behalf of lesser court - Government of India Ministry of Works and Housing New Delhi - Said notice required petitioner Express Newspapers - New Delhi to show cause why Union of India should not re enter upon and take possession demised premises court together with Express Buildings built thereon aforesaid indenture of lease for alleged breach lease deed – Held, Court have perused judgment prepared by brother Justice as also judgment of brother justice While Court agree that impugned notices threatening re-entry and demolition construction are invalid and have no legal value and must be quashed for reasons detailed in two judgments which court do not propose to repeat over again - Court am view that other questions involved in case are based upon contractual obligations between parties - These questions can be satisfactorily and effectively dealt with in properly instituted proceeding or suit and not by writ petition on basis of affidavits which are so discrepant and contradictory in this case - Right to land and to construct buildings thereon for running business is not derived from Constitution but springs from terms of contract between parties regulated by other laws governing subject - Delhi Development Act Master Plan Zonal Development Plan framed Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Delhi Municipal Bye laws irrespective purpose for which buildings are constructed - Whether there has been breach of contract lease whether there has been breach of other statutes regulating construction of buildings are questions which can be properly decided by taking detailed evidence involving examination and cross examination of witnesses - Petitions allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a dispute over notices of re-entry and threats of demolition issued to the petitioners, who are the Indian Express group, regarding their leasehold property and construction activities in Delhi (!) (!) .
The petitioners constructed a new Express Building with an increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 360, including a double basement for a printing press, which was done with the express permission of the lessor, the Union of India, through the Ministry of Works and Housing, and in accordance with the Master Plan and development plans (!) (!) .
The notices of re-entry and demolition are challenged on the grounds that they are invalid, illegal, and motivated by extraneous or political reasons, rather than based on substantive violations of law or lease conditions (!) (!) .
The rights of the petitioners to construct the building and operate their press are derived from contractual agreements, specifically the lease deed and subsequent permissions granted by the authorities, and are not solely based on fundamental rights under the Constitution (!) (!) .
The proceedings and notices issued were found to be arbitrary, without proper application of mind, and motivated by mala fide intentions, particularly to suppress or penalize the press for its critical stance during certain political periods (!) (!) .
The relevant laws governing land, property, and building regulations, including the Delhi Development Act and municipal bye-laws, have been held to have overriding effect over other laws, and the actions taken by authorities must conform to these laws, which the petitioners' construction did (!) (!) .
The authority of the Lt. Governor of Delhi to act in relation to the lease and property was questioned, with the conclusion that the office of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi ceased to exist following constitutional changes, and the powers of the Lt. Governor are limited to those entrusted by the President of India under the constitutional framework (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and the press are not absolute and can be subject to lawful restrictions. However, actions taken with mala fide intent or motivated by extraneous considerations violate constitutional protections and are invalid (!) (!) .
The notices and threats of re-entry and demolition were found to be invalid and liable to be quashed because they were not issued bona fide, lacked proper legal basis, and were influenced by improper motives (!) (!) .
The court directed that the respondents should refrain from executing the impugned notices and that the dispute regarding the lease and construction should be resolved through proper legal proceedings, such as civil suits or tribunals, rather than through executive or administrative orders alone (!) (!) .
The judgment reaffirmed that the rights and obligations under lease agreements are contractual and should be determined through appropriate legal channels, not through summary or arbitrary actions (!) (!) .
The court recognized the importance of the freedom of the press as a vital part of democratic governance but clarified that such rights are subject to lawful regulation and restrictions in the interest of public order and national security (!) (!) .
Overall, the case underscores the principle that governmental actions affecting property rights and fundamental freedoms must be exercised in accordance with law, with due process, and without mala fide or political motives. Any deviation from this standard renders such actions invalid and subject to judicial review (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
Judgment-
SEN
( 1 ) THESE petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution are by petitioner No. 1, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. , which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of printing and publishing the national newspaper the Indian Express (Delhi Edition) from the Express Buildings at 9-10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, held on a perpetual lease from the Union of India under a registered indenture of lease dt. Mar. 17, 1958. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner No. 2, the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. of which petitioner No. 3 Ram Nath Goenka is the Chairman of the Board. of Directors. Petitioner No. 4 Nihal Singh was the then Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Express and petitioner No. 5 Romesh Thapar was the Editor of the Seminar published from the Express Buildings.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT 1 is the Union of India, 2 is Jagmohan, Lt. Governor of Delhi, 3 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 4 the Zonal Engineer (Buildings), 5 the Land and Development Officer, etc.
( 3 ) THE petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued by the Engineer Officer, Land and Development Office, New Delhi dt. 10/03/1980 purporting to be on behalf of the lessor i. e. the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, New Delhi. The said notice required petitioner No. 1, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi to show cause why the Union of India should not re-enter upon and take possession of the demised premises i. e. plots Nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg together with the Express Buildings built thereon under Cl. 5 of the aforesaid indenture of lease dt. 17/03/1958 for the alleged breach of Cls. 2 (14) and 2 (5) of the lease-deed. They also challenge the validity of an earlier notice dt. 1/03/1980 issued by the Zonal Engineer (Buildings), Municipal Corporation, City Zone, Delhi to petitioner No. 1, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. , New Delhi to show cause why the aforesaid buildings being unauthorized should not be demolished under Ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
( 4 ) THE petitioners allege that the impugned notices of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease and of threatened demolition of the Express Buildings at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi which constitute the nerve-centre of the newspaper the Indian Express which has the largest combined circulation among all the daily newspapers in India and is published simultaneously from eleven cities in the country, are wholly mala fide and politically motivated. They further allege that the impugned notices constitute an act of personal vendetta against the Express Group of Newspapers in general, and Ram Nath Goenka, Chairman of the Board of Directors in particular, and are violative of Arts. 14, 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. We are informed that a teleprinter is installed at the Express Buildings at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg from where the Delhi edition of the Indian Express is published and the editorials, editorial policies and leading articles are transmitted to ten cities all over India from where the other editorial of the Indian Express are published simultaneously every day, namely, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bombay, Chandigarh, Cochin, Hyderabad, Madras, Madurai, Vijaywada and Vizianagaram.
( 5 ) THE issues raised in this case are far-reaching in significance to the maintenance of our federal structure of Government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Lt. Governor of Delhi that he has power and authority to administer properties of the Union of India within the Union Territory of Delhi which he is called upon to administer. The questions presented are whether the Lt. Governor of Delhi could usurp the functions of the Union of India, Ministry of Works and Housing and direct an investigation into the affairs of the Union of India i. e. question the legality and propriety of the action of the then Minister for Works and H
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
