Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
B. K. RAVICHANDRA & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 1460 of 2010
Decided on : 24-11-2020
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable properties Act, 1952 – Section 8(2A) – Constitution of India – Article 300A – Acquisition of land – Payment of compensation – For period requisition order is in operation, owner loses her possessory rights, even though title remains undisturbed – Since deprivation of possession is through authority of law, in keeping with fair procedure, law (Requisitioning Act) provides for payment of compensation in accordance with predetermined principles – Taking of property by definition is finite: it cannot result in expropriation or deprivation of title altogether, unless another process for acquiring it, is initiated – Requisition, by its nature, is temporary and that landowner’s right to property cannot remain suspended indefinitely, at wishes of State or its agencies – Although right to property is not a fundamental right protected under Part III of the Constitution of India, it remains a valuable constitutional right – To permit State, whether Union or any State Government to assert that it has an indefinite or overriding right to continue occupying one’s property (bereft of lawful sanction)–whatever be pretext, is no less than condoning lawlessness – Impugned judgment committed error in refusing relief to appellants – 33 years based upon cessation of Union’s legal possession is a long enough time to be kept away from one’s property – Respondent Union directed to hand back possession of suit lands to appellants, within three months – It is open to appellants to seek compensation based on fresh fixation of capital value and recurring annual value, based on different five-year periods for last 20 years – Such a claim shall be referred to arbitration, within four weeks of receipt of reference – Arbitrator shall proceed to pronounce award within six months of receipt of reference – This is independent of Union’s obligation to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of suit lands within three months – Appeal allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 75,000/-. (Paras 18, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal by special leave questions a judgment of the Karnataka High Court1. High Court rejected the appellants’ claim to direct the respondent (Union) to vacate their lands, leaving it open to the latter to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of certain lands which belonged to the appellants.
Findings of Court:
Courts’ role is to act as the guarantor and jealous protector of the people’s liberties: be they assured through freedoms, and the right to equality and religion or cultural rights under Part III, or the right against deprivation, in any form, through any process other than law. Any condonation by the court is a validation of such unlawful executive behaviour which it then can justify its conduct on the anvil of some loftier purpose, at any future time- aptly described as a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
This appeal by special leave questions a judgment of the Karnataka High Court1[Dated 11.01.2008 in W.P. 8340/2006]. The High Court rejected the appellants' claim to direct the respondent (hereafter called "the Union") to vacate their lands, leaving it open to the latter to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of certain lands (which belonged to the appellants).
2. Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Union, enacted the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable properties Act, 1952 (hereafter called "the Requisitioning Act"). It was brought into force on 15.03.1952. 2[By virtue of Section 1(3), the Act was initially temporary, and to remain in force for six years. The object of the Act was to enable the Union to requisition or acquire immovable property if the competent authority was of the opinion that any property was necessary for a public purpose. By Section 1(3), the Requisitioning Act was to be in force for six years. Section 3 clothed the Union with the power to requisition properties for any public purpose; Section 7 provided the procedure to requisition (or acquire) lands. It also spelt-out the condition precedents for exercise of the power. Section 8 provided for compensation with regard to property. Section 8(2) laid out the principles applicable for determination of compensation for the property as a recurring one3[Section 8(2) (a) provided inter alia, as follows:
"a recurring payment in respect of the period of requisition of a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the property, if it had been taken on lease for the period. "
Section 8 (2) (b) provided for payment of
(b) such sum or sums, if any, as may be found necessary to compensate the person interested for all or any of the following matters, namely:
(i) pecuniary loss due to requisitioning;
(ii) expenses on account of vacating the requisitioned premises;
(iii) expenses on account of reoccupying the premises upon release from requisition; and
(iv) damages (other than normal wear and tear) caused to the property during the period of requisition, including the expenses that may have to be incurred for restoring the property to the condition in which it was at the time of requisition.]. On 27.02.1958, the Requisitioning Act was amended and the period of its operation extended. In the meanwhile, the Defence of India Act, 1962 (hereafter referred to as "the DIA") was enacted by Parliament empowering the Central Government with powers akin to those enacted under the Requisitioning Act. The Union invoked its powers under the DIA and requisitioned the three described properties which belonged to the predecessor of the appellants (hereafter referred to as "the suit lands"). These comprised of Survey Nos. 101/1 & 101/2 - the two survey numbers aggregating 2 acres 39 guntas and Survey No. 104 (2 acre 8 guntas) in Byppanahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. The then owner, i.e. late B.M. Krishnamurthy, the appellants' predecessor handed over the possession of the suit lands under protest; these were taken over under Section 30 of the DIA. The competent authority fixed the compensation for these lands by order dated 18.12.1964. The approval for this compensation fixation was given much later -in 1968.
3. By Act 48 of 1963, Section 1(3) of the Requisitioning Act was amended, and the period of operation of the Requisitioning Act was extended till 14.03.1970. In the meanwhile, the DIA lapsed with effect from 10.01.1968. The Requisitioning Act was amended, incorporating Section 25, which enacted that the immovable property requisitioned under the DIA, which had not been released as on 10.01.1968 was deemed to have been requisitioned under the Requisition Act. It also continued the status quo with respect to determination of compensation completed under the DIA. This Amendment Ordinanc
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
