Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.S.Tewatia and I.S.Tiwana JJ.
Tek Chand And Others
Versus
Union Of India
Civil Writ No. 1453 of 1971,
Decided On : APRIL 23, 1980
RESUMPTION OF GRANT LAND - AUTHORITY - REGULATION 6 OF GOVERNOR GENERAL-IN-COUNCIL'S ORDER NO. 179 DATED 12TH SEPT. 1836 - VALIDITY - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ARTS. 31 AND 19(1)(F) OF THE CONSTITUTION - DISCRIMINATION - ART. 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - DETERMINATION OF QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the resumption of their property by the respondents, claiming it was without authority of law and violative of their fundamental rights under Arts. 31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. They also alleged discrimination and violation of Art. 14.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the resumption of the property was authorized by Regulation 6 of the Governor General-in-Council's Order No. 179 dated 12th Sept. 1836, which was a valid piece of law. The court also held that the resumption did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Arts. 31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, as the petitioners were not deprived of their property without due process of law and the restriction on their right to hold property was reasonable and in the interest of the general public. The court further held that the resumption was not discriminatory, as the respondents were not required to invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which provided for more liberal compensation, instead of Regulation 6. The court also held that the petitioners were not entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the resumption notice or the determination of the quantum of compensation, as the resumption was not conditional on the prior payment of compensation and the petitioners could challenge the inadequacy of compensation in an ordinary Civil Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the resumption of the property was authorized by law. 2. Whether the resumption violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Arts. 31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 3. Whether the resumption was discriminatory. 4. Whether the petitioners were entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the resumption notice or the determination of the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 6 of the Governor General-in-Council's Order No. 179 dated 12th Sept. 1836 is a valid piece of law and any action taken thereunder has the authority of law. 2. The resumption of the property did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Arts. 31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, as the petitioners were not deprived of their property without due process of law and the restriction on their right to hold property was reasonable and in the interest of the general public. 3. The resumption was not discriminatory, as the respondents were not required to invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which provided for more liberal compensation, instead of Regulation 6. 4. The petitioners were not entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the resumption notice or the determination of the quantum of compensation, as the resumption was not conditional on the prior payment of compensation and the petitioners could challenge the inadequacy of compensation in an ordinary Civil Court.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
D.S.TEWATIA, J.
1. The petitioners have impugned the resumption of the property in dispute firstly on an all-embracing ground that it was without the authority of law. Alternatively, regulation 6 of the Governor General-in-Council s Order No 179 dated 12th Sept. 1836 which had been invoked in issuing the impugned notice of resumption, Annexure- D dated 17th Mar. 1971, by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, is being labelled as null and void as being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, granted under Arts.31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, and, in any case, the action of resumption is said to be suffering from the vice of discrimination and thus violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
2. Before embarking upon a consideration of contentions based on the aforesaid three grounds, it is apt to first clear a confusion in regard to the identification of the property in dispute sought to be resumed.
3. From the pleadings of the parties including the replication filed on behalf of the petitioners, the facts, which indisputably emerge, are that the petitioners father, Lala Duni Chand, held on "old grant" terms as contained in the Governor General-in-Council s Order No. 179 dated 12th Sept. 1836, an area of 2.98 acres in Ambala Cantt. On 30th of July, 1941, the petitioners father secured on lease from the Central Government, vide Annexure- A , an area of 0.38 acres out of the area of 2.98 acres held on "old grant" terms. The lease, which was initially for 30 years, was renewable up to 90 years. The remaining area of 2.60 acres held on "old grant" terms was allotted Survey No. 36 while the area of 0.38 acres held on lease after 30th of July, 1941 was given Survey No. 36-A. The respondents have sought to resume the site covered by Survey No. 36 covering an area of 2.60 acres and the building standing thereon which is described as Bungalow No. 42, as would be clear from notice dated 17th of Mar. 1971, Annexure- D which bears reproduction in full. It reads :-
"Whereas the land comprising Survey No. 36 (Bungalow No. 42) Ambala Cantonment measuring 2.60 acres and bounded as follows :-
North by - Brind Road and Survey No. 36-A, South by - Survey No. 35 (Bungalow No. 40), East by - R. H. A. Mess Road, West by - Survey No. 33 (Bungalow No. 43), belongs to the President of India (hereinafter called the Government) and is held on "old grant" terms as contained in Governor General s Order No. 179 dated 12-9-1836 under which Government are entitled to resume the said land. AND WHEREAS the said property is held on hire by the Government is in the occupation of Government. AND WHEREAS the Government have decided to resume the said property under the terms of the aforementioned Governor General s Order : NOW, therefore, in exercise of the power hereinbefore mentioned, the Government hereby inform you that all rights, easements and interest you may have in the said land as also in the buildings standing thereon shall cease on the expiry of 30 days of this notice. TAKE NOTICE further that the Government are prepared to pay and so offer you the sum of Rs. 3,640/- (Rupees three thousand six hundred and forty only) as the value of the authorized erections standing on the said land. In case the amount of compensation offered is not acceptable to you, yon are at liberty, if you so desire, to remove the structures so as to leave the land in the same condition in which it was before the erections. That means that the area covered by Survey No. 36-A and which forms the Subject matter of lease-deed, Exhibit A , dated 30th July, 1941, is not being sought to be resumed. Further, as would be clear from paragraph 2 of affidavit by way of written statement to Civil Writ Petition No. 1453 of 1971, the land covered by Survey No. 36 on which stood premises of Bungalow No. 42, was admittedly under the ownership of the Central Government (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Government).
4 The entire site covered by Survey Nos. 36 a
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
