Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
L. NARAYANA SWAMY, R. DEVDAS, JJ.
Rukmini - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 17584 of 2011
Decided On : 05-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
S.S. Naganand, Adv., M.R. Vijaya Kumar, Adv., Unnikrishnan M., Adv., Pradeep Singh, Adv., Rayappa V. Hadagali, Adv., Ganapathi Hegde, Adv., S.S. Mahendra, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the Ministry of Defence to return requisitioned property to the original owner or legal heirs under the RAIP Act, and the consequences of unauthorized occupation by a third party. The judgment also emphasizes the binding nature of parties' agreements and submissions in a court of law.
Headnote:
RAIP Act - Requisitioned Property - Land Acquisition - Ministry of Defence - HMT - Sy.Nos.21 and 22 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Requisitioning And Acquisition Of Immovable Property Act,1952 (RAIP Act) and its provisions, particularly Section 7 and Rule 9, which govern the return of requisitioned property. The court also referred to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 and its application in the case. The judgment highlighted the obligation of the Defence Department to return the requisitioned property to the original owner or legal heirs, and the consequences of unauthorized occupation by HMT. The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions of the RAIP Act and the principles established in previous Supreme Court judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed to be the legal heirs of the owner of lands requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence. They sought redelivery of the unacquired portion of the requisitioned land or rental compensation under the RAIP Act. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, but the appeal was allowed by the Court, directing the respondents to consider the demand for releasing the requisitioned property.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Ministry of Defence had not returned the unacquired requisitioned land to the original owner or legal heirs, and that HMT was in unauthorized occupation of a portion of the land. The Court held that HMT must vacate and hand over the land to the appellants, or pay compensation. The Court also rejected the respondents' argument on maintainability, based on their agreement not to raise the question of maintainability during the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the return of requisitioned property under the RAIP Act, the lawful occupation of the land by the respondents, and the exact area of land required to be released to the appellants. The Court also addressed the question of maintainability, based on the parties' agreement not to raise the issue during the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the failure of the Ministry of Defence to return the unacquired requisitioned land, the unauthorized occupation of the land by HMT, and the parties' agreement not to raise the question of maintainability during the appeal.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, the order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the 4th respondent HMT was directed to vacate and hand over the land to the appellants, or pay compensation. The Court also held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation if the directions were not complied with.
JUDGMENT :
R. DEVDAS, J.
1. By order dated 28.06.2012, this appeal was disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the demand made by the appellants to release the requisitioned property and to release the land requisitioned from Papaiah Naidu, in accordance with law. On a review petition filed by the respondent No.1- Union of India along with respondents No.2 and 3 in R.P.No.4/2014, the review petition was allowed by order dated 30.03.2016 and this appeal was restored to examine three aspects as observed therein.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein claim to be the legal heirs of Sri Papaiah Naidu, who was the owner of lands bearing Sy.Nos.21 and 22 of Jarkabande Kaval Village, Bangalore North Taluk. It is contended that Papaiah Naidu, was the owner of 7 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.21 and 7 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.22, having purchased the same from the previous owner, vide sale deed dated 11.07.1932. Out of the aforesaid land, Puttanarasamma W/o Papaiah Naidu sold 4 acres 22 guntas in favour of Mohammed Ghouse, vide sale deed dated 12.03.1955. In the meanwhile, the first respondent-Union of India, Ministry of Defence, had requisitioned 10 acres 35 guntas belonging to Papaiah Naidu, in the year 1941, for the purpose of establishment of Defence Department in Bangalore North Taluk. Subsequently, vide notification dated 02.03.1973,1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 and 4 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.22, totally measuring about 5 acres 38 guntas were acquired under Form 'J' notification duly published in the Mysore Gazette on 02.03.1973, for the Indian Air Force which is the second respondent herein. It is therefore contended that after the acquisition by the Ministry of Defence,4 acres 37 guntas remained unacquired but continued to be in the possession of the Defence Department and no rents were paid thereto.
3. It was contended by the appellants before the writ court, in the writ petition that consequent to the acquisition of 5 acres 38 guntas by the Ministry of Defence under 'J' notification and the remaining 4 acres 37 guntas being in unauthorized occupation of the Ministry of Defence and since no rents were paid, a claim was made by the appellants herein to redeliver possession of the extent of land which was in unauthorized occupation or pay rental compensation if the Ministry of Defence chooses to retain the same under the provisions of The Requisitioning And Acquisition Of Immovable Property Act,1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'RAIP Act' for short). However, since the first respondent did not respond to the claim made by the appellants herein, the appellants approached the writ Court in W.P.No.16553/2006.
4. The respondent-Union of India along with the second and third respondents, having entered appearance, filed statement of objections, inter alia contending that the Defence Department i.e., respondents No.2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.21 and 4 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.22 totaling 5 acres 38 guntas, which were acquired under the notification dated 02.03.1973 and the remaining extent of land was in the possession of the fourth respondent-Hindustan Machine Tools (hereinafter referred to as 'HMT' for short). However, the learned Single Judge, held that the writ petition was filed 46 years after the date of acquisition and the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in the writ petition at the belated stage. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
5. In appeal, this Court, by order dated 28.06.2012 held that it was clear from the material on record that 10 acres 35 guntas of land was requisitioned by the Defence Department from Papaiah Naidu. Therefore, this Court proceeded to hold that if the purpose for which the land was taken is accomplished, it is for the Defence Department to return the property to the original owner and if he is not alive, to the legal heirs. It was held that it was an admitted position that the unacquired portion of 4 acre
