Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 1023
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Union of India
Versus
The Government of Maharashtra & Another
Notice of Motion No. 1496 of 2013 In Suit No. 2591 of 2012
Decided on : 02-05-2014
For the Plaintiff:Kevic Setalwad a/w. Som Sinha, Dhiren Shah, S.M. Chheda, Navroz Seervai, Sr. Advocate a/w. Sharan Jagtiyani, Saket Mone, Tejaswini Bhakare i/b Vidhii Partners Advocates.
For the Defendants:D1, A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate a/w. Uday Nighot, Advocate, R.M. Vasudeo, AGP.
The specific appointment of the deponent of the plaint as per Order 27 Rule 1 of the CPC supersedes the guidelines provided in the Military Lands Manual (MLM) and the rules for the Acquisition, Custody and Relinquishment of Military Lands in India, 1944 (ACR).
Headnote:
Notice of Motion - Suit Filing Authority - Military Lands Manual (MLM), Acquisition, Custody and Relinquishment of Military Lands in India, 1944 (ACR) - The judgment discusses the provisions contained in Military Lands Manual (MLM) and the rules for the Acquisition, Custody and Relinquishment of Military Lands in India, 1944 (ACR) in relation to the authority of the person verifying the plaint filed by the Union of India. It highlights the specific appointment of the deponent of the plaint as per Order 27 Rule 1 of the CPC, and how it supersedes the orders and rules made under the MLM, which are considered as mere guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a Notice of Motion seeking a declaration that the suit filed by the plaintiff through the General Officer in Command (GOC) is without sanction and authority in law, and for the rejection of the plaint. The suit was filed by the Union of India for the declaration of sole ownership of the suit property and recovery of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of the Military Lands Manual (MLM) and the rules for the Acquisition, Custody and Relinquishment of Military Lands in India, 1944 (ACR) in relation to the authority of the person verifying the plaint. It found that the specific appointment of the deponent of the plaint as per Order 27 Rule 1 of the CPC supersedes the guidelines provided in the MLM and ACR. The court concluded that the suit was correctly filed by the authorized person and dismissed the Notice of Motion.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority of the person verifying the plaint filed by the Union of India, and whether the suit was filed in accordance with the provisions contained in Military Lands Manual (MLM) and the rules for the Acquisition, Custody and Relinquishment of Military Lands in India, 1944 (ACR).
Ratio Decidendi: The specific appointment of the deponent of the plaint as per Order 27 Rule 1 of the CPC supersedes the guidelines provided in the MLM and ACR, and the suit was correctly filed by the authorized person.
Final Decision: The Notice of Motion seeking the rejection of the plaint was dismissed by the court.
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant No.2 for a declaration that the suit filed by the plaintiff through the General Officer in Command (GOC) is without sanction an authority in law as per the provisions contained in Military Lands Manual (MLM) and the rules for the Acquisition, Custody and Relinquishment of Military Lands in India, 1944 (ACR) and the instructions contained in 'Disposal of Old Records' and for holding that the suit is barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC and to reject the plaint.
2. The suit is filed by the Union of India. It is on title. The plaintiff has applied for declaration that it is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property for recovery of possession and other incidental reliefs. Being a suit by the Union of India, it is filed by the officer appointed by the Government in that behalf.
3. Paragraph 75 of the plaint shows the averments that the plaint is declared by Major General Deepak Saxena, Chief of Staff, HQ, MG & G Area, who is duly authorized by GOC, MG & G area, who is in turn is duly authorized by the plaintiff to file the suit.
4. Defendant No.2 has challenged the verification as being barred by law and called upon the Court to reject the plaint on that ground.
5. The plaint is verified under the provisions of Order 27 Rule 1 of the CPC which runs thus:
ORDER XXVII
SUITS BY OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC OFFICERS
IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY
1. Suits by or against Government.- In any suit by or against [the Government], the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may, by general or special order, appoint in this behalf, and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case.
6. The plaintiff has, therefore, averred how the deponent of the plaint is the officer appointed by the Government of India. This the plaintiff has shown from 4 letters annexed to its affidavit-in-reply upon the objection of defendant No.2 of the valid appointment of the deponent. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India drew the Court's attention to Article 300 of the Constitution of India, under which the Government of India may sue or being sued in the name of Union of India and the Government of any State. Further under Article 77(3) the conduct of business of the Government of India are under the rules of business made by the President for more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India and for allocation of the said business amongst Ministers. The learned Solicitor General referred to and produced the Government of India Allocations of Business Rules (ABR) issued by the President on 14.01.1961. Under Rule 2 of the said rules the business of Government of India is to be transacted in Ministries, Departments, Secretariats and offices specified therein. Under Rule 3 of the rules, the distribution of the space amongst the various departments as shown in the second schedule is made. Under Rule 4 the allocations of departments amongst Ministries is made. Item No.9 in the first schedule to the rules relating to Rule 2 deals with the Ministry of Defence (Raksha Mantralaya). The second schedule under Rule 3 inter alia shows the Ministry of Defence (Raksha Mantralaya) being inter alia in charge of ACR of properties and eviction of unauthorized occupants from defence land and property.
7. The plaintiff has shown the Ministry of Defence, which is the relevant department in charge of property of the Department of Defence and consequently in charge of eviction of unauthorized occupants from defence land. The letter dated 19.05.2011 signed by the Director (Vigilance) of the Ministry of Defence shows that the Defence Minister (Raksha Mantri) has approved appropriate action to be taken by the Army in consultation with the DGDE.
8. The Joint Secretary (C & W) of the Ministry of Defence authorized HQ, MG & G Area, Mumbai on behalf of the Ministry of Defe
