N Criminal Appeal No 558 and 559 of 1985
From the Judgment and order dated 14285 of the Allahabad High Court in WP No 5805 and 5806 of 1985
775 Mohan Pandey for the Appellants
Yogeshwar Prasad and Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BC RAY J
These two appeals by special leave are against the order passed on February 14 1985 by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the writ petition No 5806 of 1984 and writ petition No 5805 of 1984 as well as writ petition No 309 of 1985 whereby the order of detention passed against the appellants on October 1 and October 20 1984 respectively under section 32 of the  was upheld as legal and valid
The copy of the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention and the first information report on the basis of which the detention order was made were served on the appellants at the time of their detention
The grounds of detention are as follows On 2591984 Shri Surya Kumar son of Shri Vishwa Pal resident of 33 Babuganj PS Hasanganj District Lucknow lodged a report at PS Hazratganj Lucknow that on 1591984 there was a tender for the supply of ballast in PWD in which tenders had been submitted by him in KP Singh s name
You keep share with KP Singh
On account of your and KP Singh s terror no other person submits any tender against you people for which reason you people obtain tenders at rates of your choice
If any other person submits his tender you and KP Singh terrorise him
On account of the rates of his tender being lower on 1591984 the tender of the complainant was accepted in one group and in the remaining groups the tenders of KP Singh etc
were accepted
For this reason you and KP Singh bore a grudge against the complainant
On 2591984 at about 345 PM when Surya Kumar was going in connection with his tender in his Ambassador Car No USS 7418 accompanied by his brother in law opposite to the National Highway Khand he saw some contractors
On reaching near them the complainant had just started talking to them when suddenly in two cars you with a pistol Phool Chand with a revolver Jaleel with a revolver Ashok with Desi katta Ashok Sonkar and Sarrif 776 with hand grenade and Shankar Dey with a gun along with three other persons came and with intent to kill the complainant fired at the complainant threw hand grenades which fell on the car of the complainant
Consequently there was a commotion
Traffic was obstructed and public tranquility was disturbed
The complainant immediately saving his life took flight in his car
On the above information by the complainant a case FIR No 1034 was registered at police station Hazratganj against you and your other companions under Section 147 148 149 307 IPC and Section 6 of Explosives Act and after investigation a charge sheet No 279 has been put up against you for the said offence
I have also been put up against you for the said offence
I have also come to know that on your behalf an application for grant of bail has been moved in a competent court therefore in case you come out on bail from the jail you will again start activities causing breach of public order on the abovesaid grounds I have been satisfied that there is possibility of your acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and in order to prevent you from so acting it is necessary to detain you
 The said order of detention was duly approved by the State Government under section 34 of the 
The appellants made representation against the grounds of detention
The representations were rejected by the Government and the same were communicated to the appellants by the Joint Secretary Vigilance  Home Department Government of UP
On November 26 1984 the Secretary Vigilance  Home Department Government of UP informed the appellants that the Government after considering the report of the Advisory Board had confirmed the order of detention and directed that the appellants be detained for a period of 12 months with effect from October 1 1984 and October 20 1984 respectively
Aggrieved by this order of detention the appellants moved applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order of detention made by the respondent No 1 and for setting 777 them free
These were registered as writ petition No 5806 of 1984 and writ petition No 5805 of 1984
Another detenu who was detained on identical grounds also filed writ petition No 309 of 1985 before the High Court
The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellants before the High Court was that on the basis of facts alleged at the most it could be said that the matter related to the maintenance of law and order
It was not a matter relating to the disturbance of public order
The assault on Surya Kumar can only be on account of an ill will arising out of business rivalry
It had been submitted that it affects only an individual and the society or community were not affected by the alleged act of omission on the part of the appellants
It therefore raised no problem of public order
It had been further contended that a solitary act can not be considered to be an act prejudiced to the maintenance of public order
The High Court of Allahabad after hearing the parties and on a consideration of the decisions cited before it found that whether an act creates a mere law and order problem or affects the even tempo of the life of the community it is to be seen what is the extent of the impact of the act in question upon the society as a whole whether the effect is restricted to an individual or a few individuals alone or it creates a sense of insecurity danger and apprehension in the minds of the people in general apart from those who are the victims of the incident whether the act or acts disturb the even tempo of life of the society or a section of society whether the act leads to disturbance of public order or only law and order
The High Court further found that in the context the act committed tends to teach a lesson to the complainant and to act as a warning to prospective tenderers in future who may not dare to avail of the opportunity to submit their tenders against that of the appellants
It was also found that the impact and reach of the act in question goes beyond the individual and affects the community of contractors who take contracts for executing the public works
The Court further held that the order of detention made by the detaining authority is legal and valid and the writ petitions were dismissed
Undoubtedly on the basis of the FIR lodged by Surya Kumar a case under Section 147148149307 IPC and under Section 5 of the Explosives Act has been registered as crime No 1034 and the said case is pending for decision before the criminal court
The main question which falls for decision is whether the act 778 referred to in the grounds of detention is directed against certain individuals creating a law and order problem or the reach and potentiality of the act is so deep as to disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility
It has now been well settled by several decisions of this Court the latest one being Gulab Mehra vs State of UP  Ors SC 559 judgment in which case was pronounced by us on September 15 1987 that public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality
Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility
It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order or it affects public order
It has also been observed by this court that an act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity
In its quality it may not differ from another but in its potentiality it may be very different
Therefore it is the impact reach and potentiality of the act which in certain circumstances affect the even tempo of life of the community and thereby public order is jeopardized
Such an individual act can be taken into consideration by the detaining authority while passing an order of detention against the person alleged to have committed the act
In the instant case the alleged act of assault by fire arms is confined to the complainant Surya Kumar and not to others
It is an act infringing law and order and the reach and effect of the act is not so extensive as to affect a considerable members of the society
In other words this act does not disturb public tranquility nor does it create any terror or panic in the minds of the people of the locality nor does it affect in any manner the even tempo of the life of the community
This criminal act emanates from business rivalry between the detenus and the complainant
Therefore such an act can not be the basis for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass an order of detention on the ground that the impugned act purports to affect public order ie the even tempo of the life of the community which is the sole basis for clamping the order of detention
Moreover no injury was caused to the person of the complainant Surya Kumar by the appellants nor any damage was caused to the car though hand grenade was alleged to have been thrown on the car
No mark has been caused to the car also
It is relevant to mention in this connection that the appellants were released on bail by this Court after duly considering the facts and 779 circumstances of the case in July 1985
The period of one year has also expired
We have already held hereinbefore that a solitary act of omission or commission can be taken into consideration for being subjectively satisfied by the detaining authority to pass an order of detention if the reach effect and potentiality of the act is such that it disturbs public tranquility by creating terror and panic in the society or a considerable number of the people in a specified locality where the act is alleged to have been committed
Thus it is the degree and extent of the reach of the act upon the society which is vital for considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to public order
It is pertinent to note in this connection that the Criminal Appeal Nos 826 and 827 of 1985 arising out of the same incident and identical grounds of detention filed by Ashok Arora and Ashok Kumar Sonkar have been allowed by this Hon ble Court by its order dated November 29 1985 and the appellants were directed to be set at liberty forthwith
For the reasons aforesaid we allow the appeals without any order as to costs
NPV Appeals allowed


Summary:
 The appellant s Husband purchased the lands in dispute under exhibit P2 wherein it was recited that the property was not fetching any income that irrigation from the tank had failed and that as the property was a pit which required Rs2000 for filling it was sold for meeting certain family expenses
The appellant after the death of her husband instituted a suit in High Court for recovery of the land purchased by her husband and for mesne profits and other connected reliefs alleging that the property was in possession and enjoyment of her husband during his life time and subsequently in her possession and enjoyment and that the neighbouring land owner ie respondent No 1 had trespassed and encroached upon the suit property taking advantage of her helpless condition as a widow
The suit was resisted by the respondents contending that the appellant had no title to the suit property and the suit was barred by time
The respondents denied trespass or encroachment and set up title in themselves contending that the appellant was not in possession at any time within 12 years next before the suit
A Single Judge of the High Court found that the appellant s husband during his life time and the appellant after her husband s death had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and held the title in her favour
He also held that the respondent trespassed the suit property after measurement and demarcation of the land by the Tahsildar in JanFeb 1984 and therefore the appellant was in possession within 12 years prior to the date of filing the suit
The suit was accordingly decreed
Aggrieved by the judgment the respondents filed an appeal before the Division Bench which while affirming the appellant s title to 723 the property held that the appellant had satisfactorily established title to the suit property
On the question of possession however it observed that the appellant had not proved her possession of the suit property at any time within 12 years prior to the suit and the evidence adduced by her was vague and unacceptable
At the same time it held that the respondents had not perfected title by adverse possession
In the appeal by special leave it was contended that the appellate Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding of fact properly recorded by the trial Judge and that the suit property was a low lying area with deep pit where water stagnated during rainy reason and was seasonably submerged making it incapable of use and enjoyment and the legal presumption was that possession continued with the title holder
Allowing the appeal  HELD 1
Possession continues with the title holder unless and until the defendant acquires title by adverse possession
There would be no continuance of adverse possession when the land remains submerged and when it is put out of use and enjoyment
In such a case the party having title could claim constructive possession provided the title had not been extinguished by adverse possession before the last submergence
There is no difference in principle between seasonal submersion and one which continues for a length of time
730D E Basanta Kumar Roy vs Secretary of State ILR Vol
44 1917 Calcutta series 858 at 871 2 and Sarkar on Evidence Vol 2 13th Edn
p 110 referred to
In the instant case the appellant has proved title to the property
The respondents have not acquired title by adverse possession
The property as described in the sale deed exhibit P 2 was a vacant land fetching no income
It was called Pallam or pond that was seasonally submerged but it makes little difference in the position of law
As a general rule possession of part is in law possession of the whole if the whole is otherwise vacant
731D E 2
The appellate court does not reverse a finding of fact rested on proper appreciation of the oral evidence
This is a rule of practice which has almost the force of law
728B C Sarju Pershad vs Raja Jawaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh 724 1950 Vol
I SCR 781 relied on
In the instant case the trial judge on a consideration of every material on record reached the conclusion that the appellant was in possession of the property and it was only in 1954 that she was dispossessed
This conclusion was also based on the credibility of the witnesses examined by the parties
The Division Bench reversed that finding without due regard to the probability of the case and the considerations which weighed with the trial judge
728G H The Division Bench appears to have missed important features which have not been properly explained by the respondents namely about the western boundary of the property purchased by the respondents and the discrepancy in the area of the property purchased by first respondent which has been shown differently in Exs
P6 P7 and P8 and the contradictory stand of DW 3 Secretary of the first respondent trust who was the star witness in support of the respondents  case regarding the first respondent s title and the appellant s possession of the disputed property
While DW 3 denied in his written statement the appellant s allegation that her land was encroached by the respondents in the early part of January February 1954 he stated before the Court that he did not investigate the title and could not take personal responsibility for the said statement
This was the final blow to the respondents  case which the Division Bench has failed to appreciate
729F H 730A