Case: Harish Chandra Nigam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

We shall state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 559 of 1970 in which the appellant is Shri Harish Chandra Nigam. The facts of the other appeal viz. Civil Appeal No. 560 of 197 0 in which the appellant is Shri Amar Singh are almost identical except one which shall be stated hereinafter. The plot concerned in Nigams appeal is plot no. 60 and in the other appeal it is plot no. 6. Nigam made an application to the Director of Industries, Uttar Pradesh for allotment of the plot to him for industrial purposes. By an order dated November 22, 1956 the application was "provisionally accepted subject to the final approval of Government." Finally he was informed by the Manager of Industrial Estate, Kalpi Road, Kanpur in his letter dated 31-10-1962 "that the State Government has not approved the allotment in your favour and the provisional allotment made in your favour stands cancelled." But it appears after the provisional allotment Nigam was put in possession of the land. Steps were to be taken for his eviction after giving information as to the cancellation of the allotment in the letter aforesaid dated 31-10-1962. But before these steps were take n and possession was recovered from him the District Magistrate, Kanpur requisitioned the plot under section 29 ofthe Defence of India Act, 1962; hereinafter called the Act. This order is dated 7-12-1963. The order reads as follows:-"Whereas in my opinion it is necessary and expedient to requisition unit no. 60 in the Govt. Industrial Estate, Kanpur specified below, of which you are the person in possession for efficient conduct of Military operations.And whereas the powers of requisitioning under Section 29 ofthe Defence of India Act, 1962 (Central Act. No. 51 of 1962) have been conferred on me by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Notification No . 5589/18-I-LA/63, dated January 14, 1963 issued by Revenue (B) Department-/18 Bhardwaj, District Magistrate, Kanpur hereby requisition the aforesaid Unit and order that possession thereof be delivered by 11-12 -63 to the General Manager, ordnance Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur, after removing therefrom any furniture or other articlesI further order that the Tahsildar, Kanpur shall arrange for the delivery of possession of the aforesaid unit to the General Manager, ordnance Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur at the expiry of the period indicated above, if the possession is not delivered in compliance of the above order."Pursuant to the above order possession was taken from appellant Nigam on January 2, 1964 and was handed over to the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur. No steps were taken by the Industries department for taking formal or symbolical possession of the plot in question after it was requisitioned by the District Magistrate. Then came the derequisitioned order passed by the District Magistrate under s. 35 of the Act on 20-1-1967. In passing it may be mentioned here that the appellant had kept his stores in two of the rooms standing in the land. But this fact is not very material for the purpose of deciding the matter in issue before usThe de-requisition order reads as follows:-Whereas the property specified in the schedule hereto appended was requisitioned by the order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur dated 7-12-1963 until further order.And whereas it has now been decided that the said property shall be released from requisition with immediate effectNow, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 35 ofthe Defence of India Act, 1962 (Act No. 51 of 1962), I, S. S. Sidhu, District Magistrate, Kanpur being the competent authority do here by declare that the said property is released from requisition, and hereby specify the Director of Industries, Kanpur as the person to whom the possession of the said property shall be givenThereupon the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondent directing to deliver possession of the property in dispute to the appellant and not to deliver possession to any other person. It appears, however, that possession of the property had been given to the Industries department. The petitioner unsuccessfully prosecuted his writ petition before the learned single Judge of the High Court. He failed in appeal also. Hence the present appealOne extra fact which need be mentioned in regard to the case of Amar Singh is that after de-requisition and after possession of the plot was taken by the Industries department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh the plot was allotted to Mrs. B. K. Anand, respondent no. 5 in Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1970. The other facts of his case are identical.

Reasoning:
The requisition was effected by an order in writing addressed to the person in possession of the property in accordance with sub-s. (2) of s. 29. He may not be the owner of the property . But on requisition possession was taken from him. The inquiry envisaged under sub-s. (1) of s. 35 is necessitated only if facts and events taking place after requisition necessitate it. Otherwise not. As for example, suppose, possession of a property is taken from X and after requisition he dies and dispute starts between his heirs as to who is entitled to get back the property. A summary and prima facie inquiry may be made under sub-s. (1) and property may be released in favour of t he person who may be entitled to the possession of it in the opinion of the Government. Of course such a decision would be subject to the adjudication of the rights of the parties in accordance with sub-s. (2). Facts anterior to the requisition are not necessary to be investigated for release of the property because the property has to be released in favour of the person from whom possession was taken. If it were not so then it would be enlarging the scope of the inquiry envisaged under sub-s. (1) of s. 35 of the Act and the power of the Government to adjudicate upon anterior title of the various claimants to the property. This is not the scope of the inquiry. It is, therefore, clear to us that technically speaking on a correct interpretation of the law the property on de-requisition ought to have been released in favour of the two appellants in the two appeals from whom possession was taken at the time of requisition. But on the special facts of these two appeals we do not feel persuaded to make our unqualified or unconditional order in these appeals filed on grant of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution as justice requires only a qualified and conditional order. It is plain on the f acts placed before us that there was no final allotment of the plots in favour of the appellants. The allotment was only provisional subject to the approval of the Government. Possession had been given to them and before requisition the Industries department had not recovered back possession of either of the two plots. In such a situation we make the following orders in the two appeals separatelyCivil Appeal No. 560 of 1970Since in this case allotment of the plot w as made in favour of Mrs. B. K. Anand, we do not consider it just and expedient to direct the Government to take steps for completing the formality of taking possession and to dispossess Mrs. Anand.