1984 (12) TMI 338 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the suit is barred by time.
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable.
3. Whether the court has no jurisdiction.
4. Whether the President of India or the Land and Development Officer can cancel the lease for its breach if the property was part of the compensation pool.
5. Whether the impugned order dated December 12, 1974, and subsequent proceedings before the Estate Officer, Land and Development Officer are illegal, void, mala fide, and without jurisdiction.
6. Whether Rule 102 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules 1955 is ultra vires of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
7. Whether clauses II and III of the lease deed are ultra vires of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
8. Whether the property in dispute formed part of the compensation pool.
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the suit is barred by time.

The defendants did not press this issue during arguments, and hence it was not adjudicated upon.

Issue 2: Whether the suit is not maintainable.

Similarly, this issue was not pressed by the defendants during arguments and was not decided.

Issue 3: Whether the court has no jurisdiction.

This issue was also not pressed by the defendants during arguments and was not adjudicated.

Issue 4: Whether the President of India or the Land and Development Officer can cancel the lease for its breach if the property was part of the compensation pool.

The court observed that the lease in question was executed in compliance with statutory provisions and was, therefore, a statutory lease. The managing officer's power to deal with the plot was determined by statutory provisions, and he was no longer competent to invoke Section 19 of the Act for canceling the lease. The court concluded that the plot of land in dispute no longer formed part of the Compensation Pool, and the stand taken by the plaintiff in this respect was misconceived.

Issue 5: Whether the impugned order dated December 12, 1974, and subsequent proceedings before the Estate Officer, Land and Development Officer are illegal, void, mala fide, and without jurisdiction.

The court found that the various show-cause notices and the final order were issued by officers who were duly authorized by the Government. However, the court held that the Lt. Governor, who was the competent authority to grant ex post facto sanction for change of user, did not apply his mind to the plaintiff's application. The court concluded that the order of forfeiture and re-entry was bad in law due to non-application of an unbiased mind by the Lt. Governor.

Issue 6: Whether Rule 102 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules 1955 is ultra vires of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

The court held that Rule 102 must be construed in conformity with the scope and ambit of Section 19 of the Act. The managing officer had no power under Section 19 to cancel or vary any lease of a Government-built property or Government plot of land unless it was in unauthorized possession of any person.

Issue 7: Whether clauses II and III of the lease deed are ultra vires of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.

The court found that the lease in question was statutory and that clauses II and III were binding on the parties. The managing officer was not competent to invoke Section 19 of the Act for canceling the lease.

Issue 8: Whether the property in dispute formed part of the compensation pool.

The court concluded that the plot of land in dispute no longer formed part of the Compensation Pool after the lease was executed. The property was placed at the disposal of the President of India to deal with it according to the terms and conditions of the lease-deed.

Issue 9: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages.

The court did not specifically adjudicate on the quantum of damages, but it decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the impugned order of forfeiture and re-entry null and void.

Conclusion:

The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the impugned order of forfeiture of lease and re-entry upon the leasehold plot and buildings constructed by the plaintiff as null and void, ineffective, and not binding on the plaintiff. The parties were left to bear their own costs.