Case: State of Punjab Vs. Sardar Sewa Singh Gill &amp; Others

that the land or any part thereof not required by the proposed Company shall revert to the Patiala State, who shall pay therefore a price equivalent to the original value of the land within 12 months less such reasonable compensation as may be assessed by the Minister in charge Development for damages done to the said land by the proposed Company in consequence of the removal of machinery, buildings, materials etc.Provided fourthly, that if, as soon as the Company is free to hand over the possession of such land, the same is not delivered by, the proposed Company to the Patiala State within reasonable time after it is no longer required for the said purpose, and there shall remain in or upon the said land any machinery, plant, building, structure stores and other works, erections and conveniences, the same shall, if not removed by the proposed Company within 24 calendar months, after notice in writing requiring their removal be given to the proposed Company by the Minister in charge Development be deemed to become the property of the Patiala State, and may be sold or disposed of for the benefit of the Patiala State, in such manner as they shall deem fit without liability. to pay any compensation or to account to the proposed company in respect thereof. Provided, however, that the said period of 24 months may be extension is necessary."State, in case they are satisfied that such an extention is necessary."3. On February 12, 1947 Messrs Sewa Santokh Brothers was incorporated and on May 27, 1948 the Company was incorporated. On April 20, 1948 prospectus of the Company as filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Company, Patiala and on July 21, 1948 certificate for the commencement of business was granted to the Company. Admittedly the Company never went into production or ever erected the factory. On December 24, 1951 a petition for the winding up of the Company was filed by S. Sewa Singh Gill in the name of the Company. On February 26, 1952 two provisional liquidators of the Company were appointed namely S. Kartar Singh Kawatra and R. N. Sanghi. This petition was, however, dismissed on October 13, 1952 on the ground that it was not competent. On October 28, 1954 13 shareholders filed a petition for compulsory winding up of the Company and on 21st October 1955 an order for the compulsory winding up of the Company was passed by the PEPSU High Court. On the passing of this order the voluntary liquidators resigned and the Bank of Patiala was appointed as the Official Liquidator. The Bank of Patiala took over possession of the property of the Company and on August 13, 1959 auctioned its machinery. Various claim petitions were filed including L.M. 106 of 1957 and L.M. 32 of 1952 wherein, respondent no. 1 claimed various sums on account of expenses incurred including the land at Doraha. The petitions were heard by Mahajan, J. who by his order dated May 26, 1962 disallowed the claim of respondent no. 1 to the land but held that the land remained vested in the respondent Company till such time as State exercised its rights under the agreement of February 4, 1947.4. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge the State of Punjab filed L.P.A. 304 of 1962 and respondent no. 1 filed L.P.A. 230 of 1962. The appeals were heard by Dulat and Pandit, JJ. who on May 8, 1964 allowed the appeal of the State to the extent that the land in dispute belonged to the State but its possession would remain with the Company till a valid notice was given by the State.In support of this appeal it was contended on behalf of the State of Punjab that the High Court was in error in holding that the first notice given by the Director of Industries to the provisional liquidators was not legally sufficient and the respondent no. 2 was not bound to give possession to the State unless a fresh notice was given. In our opinion the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant is well founded and must be accepted as correct. In the first place it is obvious that the title to the land has already vested in the State Government under the third proviso to cl. 6(a) of the Agreement because of the order of winding up of the Company made by the High Court. There is nothing in the agreement to suggest that the Company was entitled to be in possession of the property even after its title had vested in the State Government. The 4th proviso only states that if the Company does not deliver possession within reasonable time and if any machinery, plant, buildings or structures remain on the land the title to these also will vest in the State Government if the Company does not remove the structures or the machinery within 24 months from date of the notice. In the circumstances of the case we are of opinion that the respondents were given sufficient notice by the letter of the Director of Industries dated August 14, 1952. That notice satisfies the requirements of the fourth proviso of cl. 6(a) of the Agreement and the State is entitled to take possession of the land and other properties located therein within two years from date of that notice. It is necessary to state that according to P.W. 4 Jaswant Singh the buildings on the site are in an area of one bigha, the structure was pucca but temporary. It is the admitted case that the machinery has been sold by auction more than seven years back and only grass grows on the land. The evidence of Tarachand R. W. 1 also shows that a greater part of the land is barren and the machinery and other valuable properties had already been removed. Counsel on behalf of respondent no. 2 prayed that some further time may be given before the State takes possession of the properties.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In our opinion the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant is well founded and must be accepted as correct. In the first place it is obvious that the title to the land has already vested in the State Government under the third proviso to cl. 6(a) of the Agreement because of the order of winding up of the Company made by the High Court. There is nothing in the agreement to suggest that the Company was entitled to be in possession of the property even after its title had vested in the State Government. The 4th proviso only states that if the Company does not deliver possession within reasonable time and if any machinery, plant, buildings or structures remain on the land the title to these also will vest in the State Government if the Company does not remove the structures or the machinery within 24 months from date of the notice. In the circumstances of the case we are of opinion that the respondents were given sufficient notice by the letter of the Director of Industries dated August 14, 1952. That notice satisfies the requirements of the fourth proviso of cl. 6(a) of the Agreement and the State is entitled to take possession of the land and other properties located therein within two years from date of that notice. It is necessary to state that according to P.W. 4 Jaswant Singh the buildings on the site are in an area of one bigha, the structure was pucca but temporary. It is the admitted case that the machinery has been sold by auction more than seven years back and only grass grows on the land. The evidence of Tarachand R. W. 1 also shows that a greater part of the land is barren and the machinery and other valuable properties had already been removed