2019 (3) TMI 1961 - SC - Indian Laws

Holding of free hold tenure - validity of upholding the impugned notice issued Under Section 4 of the PP Act - jurisdiction over the suit property for invoking his powers Under Section 4 of the PP Act - bona fide dispute between the Appellants and the Union of India, or not - remedy of filing civil suit against the Appellant in relation to the suit property in the civil court - right to disturb their long established possession over the suit property except by following the due process of law - proceedings under the PP Act can be initiated against any person when he is found to be in its unauthorized occupation without any lawful authority from its real owner i.e. the Central/State Government or not - claim of ownership over the suit property to recover possession of the suit property from the Appellants - validity of resumption notice - HELD THAT - Respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to invoke the powers Under Section 4 of the PP Act by resorting to a summary procedure prescribed in the PP Act by sending a notice Under Section 4 of the PP Act for Appellant's eviction from the suit property. The documents filed in their support, in no uncertain terms, establish that there exists a bona fide long standing dispute as to who is the owner of the suit property-the Appellants or Respondent No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 itself admitted that there exists a bona fide dispute between the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) over the suit property involving disputed questions of facts. Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) itself stated in this Court in earlier round of litigation while disposing of their Civil Appeal Nos. 609, 611-613, 614 and 621 of 1980 that they would seek dispossession of the Appellants from the property in question in accordance with law and, if need be, by filing civil suit in the Civil Court. The Respondents cannot now be permitted to go back from their statement and take recourse to a remedy of summary procedure under the PP Act, which is otherwise not available to them - this Court while granting special leave to appeal on 03.08.2009 had also granted liberty to Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to file civil suit against the Appellants, if they are so advised. It was, however, not resorted to. The effect of quashing the resumption notice dated 21.01.1971 issued by the Respondents by the High Court vide order dated 05.02.1979/06.02.1979 in relation to the suit property was that Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) was not entitled to resort to any kind of summary remedy to evict the Appellants from the suit property not only under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 but also under the PP Act because the PP Act also provides similar summary remedy of eviction - the Civil Court alone could try and decide the question of declaration of ownership of any immovable property between the parties and such disputes could not be decided in summary proceedings under the PP Act. The principle of merger is fairly well settled. For merger to operate, the superior court must go into the merits of the issues decided by the subordinate court and record finding/s one way or other on its merits. If this is not done by the superior court, a plea of merger has no application in such a case and the order of subordinate court would continue to hold the field - in the light of the statement made by the Respondents (who were Appellants in the appeal), which resulted in disposal of their appeal, the Respondents themselves did not call upon this Court to examine the merits of the issues raised by them in their appeals. In such a situation, there was no occasion for this Court to apply the mind to the merits much less to record any finding on any of the issues arising in the appeal. In this view of the matter, the principle of merger could not operate. Whenever the question of ownership of the rights of the parties will be gone into by the concerned court, it shall decide the said question/s strictly on the basis of pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court and this Court - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act).
2. Ownership dispute over the property.
3. Validity of the resumption notice issued by the Union of India.
4. Applicability of summary eviction procedures under the PP Act.
5. Principle of merger concerning the High Court's judgment and the Supreme Court's order.
6. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the notice issued under the PP Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under the PP Act:
The primary issue was whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 4 of the PP Act for the eviction of the appellants from the suit property. The Supreme Court concluded that the Estate Officer did not have jurisdiction because the property did not belong to the Union of India. The Court emphasized that "Respondent No. 2 - Estate Officer had no jurisdiction over the suit property for invoking his powers Under Section 4 of the PP Act against the Appellants for their summary eviction."

2. Ownership Dispute Over the Property:
The appellants argued that the suit property belonged to their predecessors and then to them, not the Union of India. The Court found that there was a "bona fide dispute" between the appellants and the Union of India regarding the ownership of the property. The Court noted that "the facts set out above and the documents filed in their support, in no uncertain terms, establish that there exists a bona fide long-standing dispute as to who is the owner of the suit property."

3. Validity of the Resumption Notice:
The resumption notice dated 21.01.1971 issued by the Union of India was previously quashed by the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court held that this quashing "continues to hold good because none of the findings recorded therein are either set aside or modified by this Court."

4. Applicability of Summary Eviction Procedures under the PP Act:
The Court reiterated that summary eviction procedures under the PP Act could not be applied in cases where there is a bona fide dispute over property ownership. Referencing previous judgments, the Court stated, "the summary remedy to evict such person under the Act couldn’t be resorted to" when a bona fide dispute exists.

5. Principle of Merger:
The respondents argued that the High Court's judgment merged with the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating, "For merger to operate, the superior court must go into the merits of the issues decided by the subordinate court and record finding/s one way or other on its merits." Since the Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the High Court's decision, the principle of merger did not apply.

6. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that "the High Court having entertained the writ petition and dismissing it on merits, this objection does not survive for consideration." The Court also referenced precedents that support the maintainability of writ petitions challenging notices under any Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the notice issued under Section 4 of the PP Act. The Court emphasized that the ownership dispute should be resolved through civil litigation, not summary eviction procedures. The judgment underscores the importance of due process and the limitations of summary eviction powers under the PP Act in cases involving bona fide ownership disputes.

← Previous Next →