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

2021 Supreme(SC) 117

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LTD – APPELLANT
VERSUS
WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 738-739 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9834-9835 of 2020) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 740-741 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.9837-9838 of 2020) AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 742-744 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.10581-10583 of 2020)
Decided On : 01-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the parties :Suhaan Mukerji, Liz Mathew, Vishal Prasad, Nikhil Parikshith, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, For M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., Bijoy Kumar Jain, Kunal Mimani, Advocates

Headnote:

West Bengal Premises Requisition And Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 - Section 10B - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Premises - Physical possession - Entire second floor of premises no. 13, (Lindsay Street), , measuring approximately 7500 square feet, owned by Paper Mills Ltd, was requisitioned under West Bengal Premises Requisition And Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 - Pursuant to certain judgments of this Court, section 10B was inserted in West Bengal Requisition Act by way of an amendment - As a result of operation of section 10B of West Bengal Requisition Act, any property requisitioned under Act had to be released by State Government on or before expiry of a period of 25 years from date of requisition - For Premises, this 25-year period ended , obligating State to release Premises - It is common ground between parties that Premises was not in fact released and physical possession remained with West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd - Whether taking possession of property can wait for a minimum period within which objections could be received from landowners and inquiry under Section 5-A of Act could be completed – Held, If written authority for appointment of arbitrator is received within time, learned arbitrator is to proceed on a prima facie view of case submitted to him by parties to determine interim compensation payable within a period of two months of entering upon reference - This is owing to the fact that not a single pice has been paid for last 22 years for illegal occupation of Premises by WBMDTCL - After such interim order, learned arbitrator will proceed to deliver a final award -in light of fact that WBMDTCL has been in possession of Premises without any authority of law for last 22 years, Court do not feel that it is justified to give time as prayed for, till end of this year – Court only grant time of four months from date of this judgment to vacate Premises, conditional upon responsible officer filing an undertaking before this Court, that they will vacate Premises within four months and handover vacant possession of Premises to Appellant, and that interim compensation, if ordered before such date, will be paid within time stipulated by arbitrator so appointed – Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

R.F. NARIMAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the facts of these appeals, the entire second floor of premises no. 13, Nellie Sengupta Sarani (Lindsay Street), Calcutta [“the Premises”], measuring approximately 7500 square feet, owned by Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. [“Appellant”], was requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition And Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 [“West Bengal Requisition Act”] on 16.08.1973. Pursuant to certain judgments of this Court, section 10B was inserted in the West Bengal Requisition Act by way of an amendment on 31.03.1987. The said section reads as follows:

    “10B. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10 or section 10A, the State Government shall release from requisition any property requisitioned or deemed to be requisitioned under this Act on or before the expiry of a period of twenty-five years from the date of such requisition:

    Provided that the benefit of this section shall not be available until after the expiry of a period of five years from the date of coming into force of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) (Second Amendment) Act, 1986.”

3. As a result of the operation of section 10B of the West Bengal Requisition Act, any property requisitioned under the Act had to be released by the State Government on or before the expiry of a period of 25 years from the date of requisition. For the Premises, this 25-year period ended on 15.08.1998, obligating the State to release the Premises. It is common ground between the parties that the Premises was not in fact released and physical possession remained with the West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. [“WBMDTCL”].

4. Subsequent to the lapse of such period, by way of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [“Land Acquisition Act”], published on 12.08.1999, the Premises was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of providing the permanent office accommodation of WBMDTCL. This notification of 12.08.1999 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1045 of 2000 filed on 18.04.2000 before the High Court of Calcutta by the Appellant, who owned the said Premises. It may also be mentioned that Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2000 was also filed by the Appellant on 17.04.2000, seeking handover of vacant possession of the Premises since the 25-year period prescribed by section 10B of the West Bengal Requisition Act had ended.

5. By an order dated 22.06.2000, in Writ Petition No. 1042 of 2000, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta held as follows:

    “The learned counsel Mr. Bhattacharji appearing on behalf of the Respondent no. 4 as well as the learned counsel Mr. Dutt appearing on behalf of the State submitted that three months time should be granted to the Respondent no. 4 to vacate the premises in question without prejudice to its rights to take such appropriate legal steps as are available to it to acquire the property in question, accordingly such an order is passed with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned counsel have also submitted that [insofar] as the compensation is concerned the same may be decided by the Court on materials to be placed by them by filing separate affidavit.

    Let such affidavit be filed within three weeks from the date, reply, if any, within two weeks thereafter with liberty to mention the matter before me as and when I will be sitting singly.

    The writ petition is kept alive only for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation to be paid by the Respondent No. 4 to the Writ Petitioner for occupying the property in question subsequent to coming to an end of the order of requisition until delivery of possession thereof is effected in terms of this order. This order has been passed by consent of all the parties and the counsel appearing for parties have signed a copy of the same in acknowledgement thereof and the same is kept with the record.”

6. On the same day, in Writ Petiti


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