vil Appeals Nos 578485 of 1983
From the Judgment and Order dated 231983 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WA Nos 170 and 171 of 1982
WITH Special Leave Petition Civil No 1679 of 1989 and Transfer case No 29 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 1361988 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 5498 of 1983
TS Krishnamurthy lyer Dr V Gouri Shankar Meeraj Khayyam RN Keshwani
M Qamaruddin PN Mishra and Mrs M Qamaruddin for the Appellant
Dr LM Singhvi SK Shashtri DN Mishra and TVSN Chart for the Respondents
C Sitaramaiah and G Prabhakar for the State of Andhra Pradesh
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
The appeals are by special leave 1he transferred writ petition by respondent No 1 in the Civil Appeals is writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court being 6500 of 1983 in a connected proceedings
The special leave petition is by the 785 owner of some lands which form the subject matter of acqui sition
On 561975 2110 acres of land located at Bagh Amberpet in Hyderabad said to be belong to Syed Azam and members of his family were notified to be acquired under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act for a housing project undertaken by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in collaboration with HUDCO
Enquiry under section 5A of the Act was dispensed with by a separate notification issued along with the preliminary notification
On 2541978 notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made
Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society on the plea that it had entered into a contract of purchasing the very property from the owners had applied for exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act
On 17101978 prayer for exemption was refused
On 1191980 exemption was however granted
Thereupon two writ petitions were filed before the High Court one by Tulsi Cooperative Hous ing Society and the other by the owners of the property for quashing of the acquisition proceedings
The learned Single Judge upheld the acquisition but the writ appeal of Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society were allowed by a Full Bench of the High Court as a result of which the acquisition proceed ings were held to be inoperative
Bagh Amberpet Welfare Society had entered into arrange ment with the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for being assigned land for construction and was therefore interest ed in the acquisition
The civil appeals are by that Society challenging the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in the two writ appeals filed by Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society
On 2361983 the exemption which had been granted on 119
1980 was withdrawn by the State Government
Syed Azam one of the owners challenged the withdrawal of the exemption by filing a writ petition before the High Court
The High Court took note of the position that the dispute was already pending in this Court and therefore by its order dated 1361988 dismissed the petition without entering into the merits
That has led the owner to move this Court by special leave
Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society also moved the High Court by filing Writ Petition No 650083 against the with drawal or  the exemption
That petition was pending adjudi cation before the High Court and at the instance of the parties this Court directed transfer of that case to this Court to be heard along with the pending matters
This is how Transferred Writ Petition No 2989 forms part of this group of litigation
786 On 781985 this Court desired that the dispute should be settled amicably and accordingly certain proposals were examined
As already noticed the acquisition was of 2010 acres of land
18 acres and 3 gunthas belonged to the Azam family and at one stage each of the two Cooperative Socie ties had agreed to take 9 acres and 1 12 gunthas thereof
The Secretary to Andhra Pradesh Government in the Urban Development Department responded to the settlement by say ing Since the compromise is arrived at between both the ag grieved parties before the Requisitioning Officer based upon the opportunity given by the Supreme Court the State Gov ernment need not intervene in regard to land acquisition
Necessary and just orders under the circumstances of the case may be passed on the basis of the compromise deed filed by both the Societies at the earliest possible to enable them to build houses
 This Court however gave time to the counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh to take instructions as to the application of the Urban Land Ceiling Act as exemption granted under section 20 had been withdrawn in June 1983
The State of Andhra Pradesh thereafter did not accept the compromise by taking the stand that proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were pending and in view of the fact that there was no exemption the property was liable to vest in Government under the Act as surplus land
This Court on August 23 1988 made an order the rele vant part of which is extracted We are not impressed by the stand taken by the writ peti tioners that there was justification for their not approach ing the court for six years after the section 41 notification when they wanted to challenge the denial of the hearing under section 5A of the Act and the proceedings itself otherwise
We agree with the learned Single Judge that the explanation not being acceptable the writ petition has been rightly dismissed
On this analysis the appellate judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and the acquisition proceed ings have to be revived
 This order virtually disposed of the appeals but as the parties were negotiating a settlement the Court did not record a formal disposal of the dispute
787 If the settlement does not fructify the effect of our decision that the acquisition proceedings are to revive would be that the claim to the land by Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society would come to an end
In that event at the most that Society would only be entitled to such compensa tion as may be awardable in law
If the acquisition proceeds the Bagh Amberpet Welfare Society and the Municipal Corpora tion would have to work out their mutual rights
Apart from these the two writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of the exemption by order dated 2361983 would also have to be disposed of on the merits
The owner s application has been dismissed upon the High Court taking the view that the matter was before this Court and therefore the High Court would not entertain the dispute
The challenge by Tulsi Cooperative Housing Society against the said withdrawal was before the High Court for adjudication
In view of the fact that the owner s writ petition was dismissed not on merits but on other considerations we are of the view that the said dismissal should be vacated and that writ petition should be heard along with Writ Petition No 650083 as a common question arises for determination
We therefore set aside the order of the High Court dated 13th of June 1986 and direct that the said writ petition shall be disposed of afresh on merits
We are of the view that the entire litigation should go back to the High Court for appropriate disposal
The trans ferred writ petition therefore shall also go back to the High Court and shall be dealt with as Writ Petition No 6500 of 1983
The two petitions challenging the withdrawal of exemption shall be clubbed together and be heard
The pro posals undertaken relating to a settlement in regard to the 18 acres and 3 gunthas of land may be considered by the High Court in the light of all relevant material and circum stances
If the High Court is of the opinion that the matter should be settled and the entire land of the owners amount ing to 18 acres and 3 gunthas should be divided between the two Societies it will be free to do so if Government also agrees thereto
Since that arrangement would be with the consent of the State Government it would in such an event be open to the High Court to nullify the acquisition
The observations which we have made at different stages during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court may not be taken to be expression of opinion on the merits and the High Court would be free to deal with the matter in its own discretion and in accordance with law
In the event of the settlement not coming through the acquisition proceedings would continue under the law and be concluded by the Land Acquisition Officer in accordance with law
In the event of the 788 acquisition working out the two write petitions against the withdrawal of exemption would not be sustainable as the land would vest in Government as a result of acquisition
It would be open to the Government or the acquiring authority to take into account the effect of the laws of urban ceil ing
The civil appeals are remitted to the High Court limited to the consideration of the proposals for settlement in the light of the observations hereinabove
Otherwise they must be taken to have been concluded in this Court on our finding that acquisition proceedings are valid and shall be entitled to continue
The special leave petition of Azam is disposed of with a direction that the writ petition in the High Court shall be re heard
The transferred writ petition is remitted to the High Court to be disposed of as Writ Petition No 6500 of 1983
The hearing of the writ petitions would depend upon the fate of the settlement as indicated above
There would be no order for costs in this Court
Money if any in deposit in the Registry of this Court to the credit of the parties shall be transferred to the High Court and shall be subject to such directions as the High Court may issue upon a final decision of the relevant issues arising in the proceedings
GN Appeals and Petitions disposed of


Summary:
The appellantspetitioners were tenants in the premises belonging to the respondent BanksLife Insurance Corporation of India
Their tenancy had expired or had been terminated by the respondents and eviction proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of the 
Writ peti tions under Article 226 were filled by the appellants in the High Court challenging the orders of eviction passed against them which were dismissed hence these appeals
The writ petitioners moved this Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution against the notices of termination of tenancy issued to them
The Public Premises Act of 1971 was preceded by two enactments the Government Premises Eviction Act 1950 and the Public Premises eviction of unauthorised occupants Act 1958 which were declared unconstitutional by different High Courts
Jagu Singh vs M Shaukat Ali  Satish Chander  Anr
vs Delhi Improvement Trust AIR 1958 Punjab 1 Brigade Commander Meerut Sub Area vs Ganga Pra sad  PL Mehar etc
vs DR Khanna etc AIR 1971 Delhi 1 and Northern India Caterers Private Ltd vs State of Punjab  Anr
  650 This led to the enactment of the Public Premises Act in 1971
The validity of this act was upheld by this Court in Hari Singh vs The Military Estate Officer  Before this Court the contentions were advanced by the parties mainly on two questions i whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act were applicable to the Premises belonging to a nationalised bank and ii whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act override the provi sions of the Delhi Rent Control Act
In regard to the applicability of the Public Premises act it was inter alia contended that the premises belonging to a nationalised bank or insurance company did not fall within the ambit of the definition of Public Premises  contained in Section 2e of the Public Premises Act for the reason that the nationalised bank was not a company as defined in Section 3 of the and it was also not a corporation established by or under a Central Act
On the other hand it was contended that the respond ents being nationalised bank was a corporation established by a Central Act viz the Bank Nationalisation Act and the premises belonging to a nationalised bank were public premises  under section 2e2ii of the Public Premises Act
In regard to the second question each side claimed that the enactment relied upon by it was a special statute and the other enactment was general and also invoked the not obstante clause contained in the enactment relied upon
In this connection it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the Public Premises Act having been enacted by Parlia ment in exercise of legislative power under Article 2461 of the Constitution in respect of matters enumerated in the Union List would ipso facto override the provisions of the Rent Control Act enacted in exercise of the legislative powers under Article 2464 in respect of matters enumerated in the concurrent list
Dismissing the appeals and the writ petition this Court HELD 1 The provisions of the Public Premises Act to the extent they cover premises failing within the ambit of the Rent Control Act override the provisions of the Rent Control Act and a person in unauthorised occupation of public premises under Section 2e of the Act cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act
694D E 2 After the second world war there has been develop ment of a new pattern of public corporation in England as an instrument of plan 651 ning in the mixed economy
The general characteristics of such a public corporation is that it is normally created by a special statute it has no shares and no share holders either private or public and its share holder in the symbolic sense is the nation represented through Government and Parliament and it has the legal status of a corporate body with independent legal personality
There has been a similar growth of this type of public corporation in other
countries
This trend is also evident in our country
since Independence and a number of such public corporations have been constituted by Acts of Parliament
668A C 3 The expression Corporation  in Section 2e2ii of the Public Premises Act would include public corporations of the new pattern constituted under the Central Acts where in the entire paid up capital vests in the Central Govern ment
670G SS Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation Delhi   distinguished
4 In order to constitute a corporation it is not necessary that there should be shareholders or members and that in the new pattern of public corporation that has developed there are no shareholders or members
671G Bank of New South Wales  Ors
vs The Common wealth  and RC Cooper vs Union of India   referred to
Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Delhi Development Authori ty  overruled
5 Provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act show that the nationalised Bank has been constituted as a dis tinct juristic person by the Act and it is owned by the Central Government
They further indicate that the nationa lised bank has all the attributes of the new pattern of public corporation
667B 6 The object of the legislation in enlarging the definition of public premises  in Section 2e of the Public Premises Act is to make available the machinery of the Act for evicting unauthorised occupants not only from the premises belonging to the Central Government but also from premises belonging to Companies Corporation and statu tory bodies in which the Central Government has a substan tial interest
670D E 652 7 Under Section 2e2i premises belonging to a company incorporated under the  in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid up capital is held by the Central Government are to be treated as public enterprises
It could not be the intention of Parliament that premises belonging to public corporations whose entire paid up capital vests in the Central Government and who are the instrumentalities of State would be excluded from the ambit of the definition of public premises 
670E G 8 Keeping in view the provisions of the Banks Nation alisation Act the nationalised bank is a corporation estab lished by a Central Act and it is owned and controlled by the Central Government
The premises belonging to a nationa lised bank are public premises under Section 2e2ii of the Public Premises Act
671 H 672A 9 There is no warrant for confining the scope of the definition of public premises  contained in section 2e to premises used for residential purposes only and to exclude premises used for commercial purposes from its ambit
672D Hari Singh vs Military Estate Officer   referred to
10 No distinction can be made between premises used for residential purposes and premises used for commercial purposes in the matter of eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises and the consideration which necessitate providing a speedy machinery for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises apply equally to both the types of public premises
673B C 11 The definition of the expression unauthorised occupation  contained in Section 2g of the Public Premises Act is in two parts
The second part of the definition is inclusive in nature and expressly covers continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoev er
The words whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer in this part of the definition are wide in ampli tude and would cover a lease because lease is a mode of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act
673F G H 674B Brigadier KK Verma vs Union of India AIR 1954 Bom 358 distinguished
653 Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs Rao Jagdish Singh  Ors   and Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
 1985 Suppl
3 SCR 302 referred to
12 It is true that there is no requirement in the Public Premises Act that the Estate Officer must be a person well versed in law
But that by itself cannot be a ground for excluding from the ambit of the said Act premises in unauthorised occupation of persons who obtained possession of the said premises under a lease when the Public Premises Act and the Rules framed thereunder provide for a right of appeal of the District Judge against an order of the Estate Officer
which shows that the final order that is passed is by a judicial officer
675F H Maganlal Chhagganlal P Ltd vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay  Ors   referred to
13 As regards rent control legislations enacted by the State legislatures the position is well settled that such legislation fail within the ambit of entries 6 7 and 13 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
682E Indu Bhushan Bose vs Rama Sundari Devi  Anr
   V Dhanpal Chettiar s vs Yesodai Ammal   Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi Etc
vs Mamanchand Ratilal Agarwal  Ors   Accountant and Secretari al Services Pvt Ltd  Anr
vs Union of India  Ors
   referred to
14 The Rent Control Act has been enacted by Parliament in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of the legislative power conferred under Article 2464 of the Constitution which empowers Parliament to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List
682G 15 The Public Premises Act deals with Government property as well as property belonging to other legal enti ties mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of Section 2e of the Public Premises Act
In so far as it relates to eviction of unauthorised occupants from premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government the Public Premises Act would fail within entry 32 of List I being law with respect to a property of the Union
The property belonging to the various legal entities mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of Section 2e of the Public Premises Act cannot be regarded as property of 654 the Union and the Public Premises Act cannot be held to have been enacted under entry 32 of List I in respect of the said properties
In so far as it deals with a lessee or licensee of premises other than premises belonging to the Central Govt the Public Premises Act has been enacted in exercising the legislative power in respect of matters enumerated in the concurrent list
682H 683A C 16 Both the statutes viz the Public Premises Act and the Rent Control Act have been enacted by the same legisla ture Parliament in exercise of the legislative powers in respect of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List
684C Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt Ltd vs Union of India And Ors   Smt
Saiyada Mossarrat vs Hindustan Steel Ltd  and LS Nair vs Hindustan Steel Ltd AIR 1980 MP
106 referred to
17 The Rent Control Act makes a departure from the general law regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant contained in the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as it makes provision for determination of standard rent it specifies the grounds on which a landlord can seek the eviction of a tenant it prescribes the forum for adjudica tion of disputes between landlords and tenants and the procedure which has to be followed in such proceedings
The Rent Control Act can therefore be said to be a special statute regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant in the Union Territory of Delhi
686D F 18 The Public Premises Act is also a special statute relating to eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises
689E Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs Life Insurance Corpo ration of India  Anr   referred to
19 Both the enactments namely the Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act are special statutes in rela tion to the matters dealt with therein
Therefore the exception contained in the principle that a subsequent general law cannot derogate from an earlier special law cannot be invoked and in accordance with the principle that the later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws the Public Premises Act must prevail over the Rent Control Act
686H 687A JK Cotton Spinning  Weaving Mills Co Ltd vs The State of Uttar Pradesh   UP State Elec tricity Board vs Hari 655 Shankar Jain  and Life Insurance Corpora tion vs DJ Bahadur   referred to
20 In the case of inconsistency between the provisions of two enactments both of which can be regarded as Special in nature
the conflict has to be resolved by reference to the purpose and policy underlying the two enactments and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein
688G Shri Ram Narain vs The Simla Banking and Industrial Co Ltd   Kumaon Motor Owners  Union Ltd vs The State of Uttar Pradesh  and Sarwan Singh vs Kasturi Lal   referred to
21 Keeping in view the object and purpose underlying both the enactments viz the Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act the provisions of the Public Premises have to be construed as overriding the provisions contained in the Rent Control Act
690H The Parliament was aware of the non obstante clauses contained in Section 14 and 22 and the provisions contained in Sections 50 and 54 of the Rent Control Act when it enact ed the Public Premises Act containing a specific provision in Section 15 barring jurisdiction of all courts which would include the Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act
This indicates that Parliament intended that the provisions of the Public Premises Act would prevail over the provisions of the Rent Control Act inspite of the above mentioned provisions contained in the Rent Control Act
691A B 23 The scope of the provisions of the Public Premises Act cannot be cut down on the basis of an apprehension that the corporations may be induced to earn profits by purchas ing property in possession of tenants at a low price and after buying such property evict the tenants after terminat ing their tenancy and thereafter sell the said property at a much higher value
Every activity of a public authority especially in the background of the assumption on which such authority enjoys immunity from the rigours of the Rent Act must be informed by reason and guided by the public inter est
693F E G Ms Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons vs Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay   referred to