Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.RAJDEV SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 1577 of 1986
Decided On : 12/12/1988
REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT, 1952 - SECTION 6(1A) - REQUISITIONING OF PROPERTY - EXPIRY OF REQUISITION PERIOD - POSSESSION TO BE RESTORED TO OWNER - PUBLIC PURPOSE - ESTOPPEL - ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES - DELIVERY OF POSSESSION TO SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
A property was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (RAIP Act) for use by Deccan Airways. After Deccan Airways vacated the property, it was allotted to the Jammu and Kashmir Government for running an arts emporium. The petitioners, who were the owners of the property, filed a writ petition challenging the requisition and seeking possession of the property after the expiry of the requisition period.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the period of requisition had expired on March 8, 1987, and the respondents were bound to restore possession of the property to the petitioners. The court rejected the respondents' arguments that they were entitled to remain in possession of the property based on promissory estoppel or that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit. The court also held that the possession of the property should be delivered to the petitioners, as they were the successors-in-interest of the person from whom possession was taken at the time of requisition.
Issues: 1. Whether the requisition of the property could continue indefinitely. 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to remain in possession of the property based on promissory estoppel. 3. Whether the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit. 4. To whom possession of the property should be delivered after the expiry of the requisition period.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the requisition of the property could not continue indefinitely, as the statutory period of requisition had expired. 2. The court held that the respondents were not entitled to remain in possession of the property based on promissory estoppel, as the promissory estoppel was not binding on the petitioners. 3. The court held that the petitioners did not have an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit, as the cause of action in the writ petition was different from the cause of action in the civil suit. 4. The court held that possession of the property should be delivered to the petitioners, as they were the successors-in-interest of the person from whom possession was taken at the time of requisition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to deliver vacant possession of the property to the petitioners within three months.
( 1 ) ONE S. B. Ranjit Singh after obtaining on lease a plot of land bearing No. 25 in Block b Connaught Place, New Delhi, constructed a building thereon having shops in inner circle of Connaught Place. This writ petition related to a show room (shop) in the said building abutting on main Connaught Place (Inner Circle ). The said show room (shop) is hereinafter referred to as the said property . By Deed of Gift dated February 5, 1946 the said S. B. Ranjit Singh made a gift of the ownership of lessee s right including the said building to the petitioner No. 1, Raj Dev Singh.
( 2 ) BY a show cause notice and/or order dated October 6, 1952 issued by the Estate Officer under sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to -as -the raip Act ) called upon S. B. Ranjit Singh/deccan Airways Limited and M/s. Hazara Singh and Son to show cause as to why the said property should not be requisitioned. Thereafter another notice and order dated December 3, 1952 to the similar effect was served upon the petitioner No. 1. In this notice and order it is stated that the said property is needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose to wit, proper and efficient functioning of the Government of India being a purpose of the Union and that the said property should be requisitioned. Thereafter by an order dated April 23, 1953 the said property was requisitioned under sub-section (2) of Section 3 and Section 4 of the RAIP Act and it isstated by the petitioners that possession of the said property was taken from the petitioner No. 1 and was placed at the disposal of M/s. Deccan Airways.
( 3 ) IT appears that upon Deccan Airways vacating the said property it was allotted to and placed at the disposal of the Jammu and Kashmir Government by letter dated January 7, 1955 pursuant to the request of the said Government for allotment of the said property. The said Government opened an emporium in the said property which was utilised basically for promoting national integration and awareness of the culture and arts of various parts of the country by selling handicrafts and other items, the production design and consumption of which were peculiar to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
( 4 ) IT is stated by the petitioners that a complex, popularly known as Baba Kharak Singh Marg Complex was completed in late 1970 and various State emporia were asked to shift into that. Consequently, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir for whom requisitioning of the said property was continuing from term to term on the ground and assumption that the public purpose of requisitioning the shop for emporium was still subsisting, also moved to the said newly constructed complex. Respondent No. 3 took possession of Unit No. 7 in the Emporia Complex on August 5, 1971. According to the petitioners with the moving of the respondent No. 3 in the said complex, the public purpose for whom the said shop was requisitioned ceased to exist.
( 5 ) THEREAFTER by Deed dated March 25, 1971 the petitioner No. 1 made a gift of the half share of the said premises No. 25-B, Con naught Place to the petitioner No. 2.
( 6 ) THE petitioners wrote letter dated March 17, 1972 to the respondent No. 1 requesting for de-requisition of the said property stating that the purpose for which the same was requisitioned was not being carried out as the said property was being utilised by a commercial organization which was not a public purpose within the meaning of the RAIP Act.
( 7 ) IN 1977 the petitioner filed in this Court civil writ petn. No. 368 of 1977 and the notice to show cause was issued to the respondents therein. However, on August 22, 1977 the said writ petition was withdrawn because of the extension of the statutory period of requisition by a further period of five years under the RAIP Act.
( 8 ) BY letter dated January 20, 1982 the Deputy Director of Estates, Government of India, wrote to the petitioner No. 2 sta
AI
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
