West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 – Requisition of Premises – Scope of s. 10B – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4 and 17(4) – Premises owned by appellant was requisitioned under the West Bengal Requisition Act by WBMDTCL – s. 10 B was inserted by way of amendment in West Bengal Requisition Act which provides that property requisitioned under the said act had to be released by the State Government on or before the expiry of a period of 25 year from date of requisition – After the lapse of said period, premises was not released, however, by way of notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the premises was sought to be acquired for the public purpose for providing the office of WBMDTCL – Said notification was challenged before Single Judge of High Court, in the mean time another notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued, this time by invoking the urgency provision u/s 17(4) – Single Judge struck down the composite notifications by holding that the urgency provision was wrongly invoked and directed WBMDTCL to vacate premises – The Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of Single Judge and set aside the order of acquisition and directed that the vacant possession of the premises should be handover to appellant – It was also observed that WBMDTCL had been enjoying the said property without paying any money subsequent to the expiry of 25 years – It was further held that the Chief Judge, City Civil Court shall asses the compensation for the period of 16.08.1998 till the possession is made over to appellant – Three separate appeals were filed before the Supreme Court against the said order, one by the State and second by appellant only on the limited ground, namely, compensation cannot be assessed by District Judge and third one by WBMDTCL – Held: The impugned judgment of Division Bench of the High Court is correct in law as the State was on notice from the date of insertion of s.10B, that the Premises would have to be released on or before 15.08.1998 – This gave the State the time of
11.5 years to act and acquire the premises but State issued the notification long after the requisition period lapsed – Hence, the appeal filed by the State are dismissed – Appeal filed by the appellant on the limited ground, namely, compensation is allowed as it is clear from the cursory reading of the provision that the compensation for the illegal occupation of the premises cannot be assessed by the District Judge u/s 11(1)(b) of the West Bengal Requisition Act, as s.11(1) refers to compensation during the period of requisition and not after the property continues to remain with the state without any authority of law even after the requisition period ends – Hence, the impugned judgment of the Divison Bench of the High Court is set aside to that extent – Arbitrator is appointed to determine the compensation that is payable by way of damages for occupation of the premises without any authority of law – WBMDTCL directed to vacate the premises.
Constitution of India: Art. 12 – State – Unlawful Possession – Held : WBMDTCL, which is a “State” within the meaning of Art.
12 of Constitution of India, continued in unlawful possession of the premises since 15.08.1998 without paying a single pie towards compensation till date – Therefore, arbitrator is appointed to determine the compensation that is payable by way of damages for occupation of the premises without any authority of law. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On the facts of this case, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is correct in law. In this case, the State was on notice from 31.03.1987, i.e., from the date of insertion of section 10B in the West Bengal Requisition Act, that the Premises would have to be released on or before 15.08.1998. This gave the State the time of 11.5 years to act and acquire the Premises. Such acquisition could easily have been done by way of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act before the lapse of the 25-year period, and would have also preserved the valuable right contained in section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. As a matter of fact, as correctly held by the Division Bench, long after the requisition period elapsed on DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORP. LTD.
15.08.1998, the State issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, without invoking any urgency provision. To then say that the urgency provision could be invoked on account of the Single Judge’s order dated 22.06.2000, is to attempt to infer from the said order, much more than it actually said. Therefore, the Division Bench rightly held that at best this order could possibly refer to the acquisition proceedings that had already been initiated by the notification of 12.08.1999 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In any case, this order could not and did not wash away the lethargy of the State in initiating acquisition proceedings, which ought to have been done before the 25-year period elapsed, by preserving the valuable right contained in section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, which could have been availed of by the owner of the Premises, i.e., the Appellant. [Para 19][15-D-H; 16-A]
2. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is fortified by several judgments. It is clear that the appeals filed by the State, namely, civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.10581-10583 of 2020 have to be dismissed. [Para 20, 24][16-B, 23-F]
3. Coming to the appeals filed by the Appellant, the said appeals are only on a limited ground, namely, that compensation for the illegal occupation of the Premises cannot be assessed by the District Judge under section 11(1)(b) of the West Bengal Requisition Act, as section 11(1) refers to compensation during the period of requisition and not after the property continues to remain with the State without any authority of law even after the requisition period ends. A cursory reading of the aforesaid provision will make it clear that the Appellant is correct in its submission, which is therefore accepted and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside to this extent. Civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9834-9835 of 2020 and SLP (C) Nos. 9837-9838 of 2020 are thereby allowed. [Paras 25, 26][23G-H; 24-A,D]
4. A very disturbing feature of these appeals is the fact that WBMDTCL, which is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, has continued in unlawful possession of the Premises since 15.08.1998 without paying a single pice towards compensation till date. Following the judgments of this Court, most notably, Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 182 and Krishan Lal Arneja, this court appoints Retd. Judge, High Court of Calcutta as arbitrator to determine compensation that is payable by way of damages for occupation of the Premises without any authority of law. A written authority to appoint such arbitrator is to be furnished to us immediately, i.e., within a week from 23.02.2021. If not so furnished, WBMDTCL will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 100 per square foot, per month (being the average of the rental amounts paid by other tenants in the same building since August 1998 as per the Valuation Report dated 30.11.2019 prepared by a Chartered Engineer, Engineer Commissioner & Valuer of Alipore Judges’ Court for the entire period of illegal occupation of the Premises within four months from the date of this judgment. [Para 27][24E-G]
5. If written authority for appointment of the arbitrator is received within time, the learned arbitrator is to proceed on a prima facie view of the case submitted to him by the parties to determine interim compensation payable within a period of two months of entering upon the reference. This is owing to the fact that not a single pice has been paid for the last 22 years for the illegal occupation of the Premises by WBMDTCL. Further, neither party is to take any adjournment before the arbitrator within this period of two months, so that the arbitrator can decide the interim compensation that is to be paid. After such interim order, the learned arbitrator will proceed to deliver a final award. [Para 28][24-H; 25-A-B]
6. WBMDTCL has asked for reasonable time to vacate the premises. However, in light of the fact that WBMDTCL has been in possession of the Premises without any authority of law for the last 22 years, we do not feel that it is justified to give time as prayed for, till the end of this year. Thus, this court only grants time of four months from the date of this judgment to vacate the Premises, conditional upon the responsible officer filing an undertaking before this Court, that they will vacate the Premises within four months and handover vacant possession of the Premises to the Appellant, and that the interim compensation, if ordered before such date, will be paid within the time stipulated by the arbitrator so appointed. [Para 29][25-C-D] DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORP. LTD.
7. In the civil appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 9837-9838 of 2020, though no one appears on behalf of West Bengal Sugar Industries Development Corporation Ltd., who have been in illegal occupation of a portion of the fifth floor of premises no. 13, Nellie Sengupta Sarani (Lindsay Street), Calcutta, measuring approximately 1350 square feet, the same directions apply qua WB Sugar Industries. Thus, WB Sugar Industries is also to submit a written authority to appoint the arbitrator within a week from 23.02.2021, failing which they shall pay a sum of Rs. 100 per square foot, per month, for the entire period of illegal occupation of the Fifth Floor Premises, within four months from the date of this judgment. Further, WB Sugar Industries is given four months to vacate the Fifth Floor Premises, upon the submission of an undertaking to vacate and handover vacant possession of the Fifth Floor Premises to the Appellant, and to pay the interim compensation within the time to be stipulated by the arbitrator. These appeals are disposed of accordingly. [Paras 30, 31][25-EG]
Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja, (2004) 8 SCC
453 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 801 – relied on.
State of U.P. v. Keshav Prasad Singh, (1995) 5 SCC
587 : [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 329; State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, (2003) 4 SCC 739 : [2003] 2 SCR 908 – distinguished.
Banwarilal & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, C.W.P. No. 2385 of 1988 reported in 1991 Supp DRJ 317; Union of India v. Shakuntala Gupta, (2002) 10 SCC 694; Union of India v. Shakuntala Gupta, (2002) 7 SCC 98; Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 182 : [1990] 1 SCR 983 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.