TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon by Respondent No. 1 itself contains Clause 1(d), 2, 3, 6 etc. which mandates the execution of registered sale-deed or conveyance deed within three years. However, the same was never done. A suit for specific performance was filed by Respondent No. 1 before Bombay High Court against SSML 25 years after unregistered agreement to sell dated 25th March, 1975, thereby, acknowledging that there was no registered document of title with Respondent No. 1. The said suit is still pending - thus, all other rights and interests in or arising out of such property as were existing immediately before the appointed day in the ownership, possession, power or control of the textile company in relation to the said undertaking vested with the Central Government and by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section (3) stood transferred to, and vested in, the National Textile Corporation. Liability if any of the owner of a textile undertaking i.e. SSML of any period to the appointed day is liability of such owner (SSML) and can be enforceable against him and not against the Central Government or the National Textile Corporation in view of Section 5(1) of 1995 Act. The First Schedule of the 1995 Act provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer any authority or jurisdiction to evict the Petitioner Under Section 5(2) of the Public Premises Act. There seems to be serious dispute about the title which dispute cannot be resolved under Public Premises Act. In our opinion, the invocation of the provisions of the Public Premises Act in the present case was wholly improper. The Estate Officer without any application of mind issued directions for putting locks and seals on the premises. In our opinion, due process of law in a case like the present necessarily implies the filing of suit by the Respondents for the enforcement of their alleged rights in respect of the subject premises. 2. While holding so the Division Bench of the High Court also set aside the order dated 23rd June, 2000 and notices dated 17th November, 2000 issued Under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the '1971 Act') by Estate Officer, National Textile Corporation (MN) Ltd. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: 3.1 The Respondent No. 1 filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court challenging the proceedings initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No. 1, it was merely an agreement to sell and hence, the subject premises got vested in the Central Government under the 1995 Act. 3.5 The High Court allowed the said writ petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 6th February, 2003. 4. The issue involved in the present appeal is: Whether in the facts and circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the Appellant before the Estate Officer against Respondent No. 1 under the 1971 Act should continue or the Appellant should be relegated to prefer a suit before the civil court as held by the High Court? 5. Learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Appellant made the following submissions: 5.1 The claim of Respondent No. 1 is based on unregistered agreement to sell which never fructified into a registered sale deed. Moreover, Respondent No. 1 is neither the owner of the land nor can it claim authorized occupancy pursuant to unregistered agreement. 5.2 The land in question got vested with the State and it is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the Appellant in view of provisions of 1983 Act and 1995 Act. In view of such vesting, Respondent No. 1 cannot claim to be an author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/-, ₹ 1,15,000/-,₹ 20,000/- and ₹ 1,80,000/-). (iv) The sale took place pursuant to a Special Resolution passed at the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Company held on 2nd March, 1975. (v) The sale of subject premises was reflected in the Balance Sheet and in Schedule of Fixed Assets of SSML for the year ended 31st March, 1975. (vi) SSML accepted tenancy under Respondent No. 1 over an area of 5802 sq. ft. of the subject premises and was paying rent to Respondent No. 1 (vii) SSML paid capital gains tax on the sale of the subject property which is clear from the letter dated 28.01.1980 written by SSML to the Commissioner of Income Tax. (viii) Various Government authorities have since recognized that it is the Respondent No. 1 to whom the said premises belongs. This is clear, inter alia, from the following (a) Order dated 23rd March, 1977 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act granting permission to SSML to transfer the subject premises to Respondent No. 1 by way of sale. (b) the agreements dated 5th May, 1976 and 1st September, 1976 whereby Respondent No. 1 had let out a portion of the property on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded from the textile undertaking of SSML in 1975, SSML had no ownership, possession, power or control in relation to the said premises and hence the subject premises stand excluded from the first part of Section 4(1) of 1995 Act. 6.7. It was further submitted that there is a serious dispute about title that cannot be resolved under the 1971 Act. The Appellant cannot be permitted to take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy. Due process of law in a case like the present necessarily implies the filing of a suit by the Appellant for enforcement of their alleged rights in respect of the subject premises. 6.8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, also relied upon decisions of this Court in Govt. of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 134 wherein the Court held that having regard to the bona fide title dispute, the Respondents cannot be evicted summarily; and State of U.P. v. Zia Khan (1998) 8 SCC 483 wherein this Court held that the question of title cannot be decided under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government to restore the possession of the said land to the Company. Being aggrieved by the said decision the Appellant corporation approached this Court. In the said case this Court held: 40....... The legislature in enacting the law for the taking over of the management of the textile undertakings therefore clearly had the intention of taking over the surplus lands of the Company. In our opinion, the High Court ought to have interpreted Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act in the context of Sub-section (1) thereof and the other provisions of the Act in consonance with the intention of the legislature. It was the intention of the legislature to take over all the assets belonging to the Company held in relation to the textile undertaking. The note attached to the report of the Task Force includes the total lands belonging to the Petitioners' Company for the purpose of determining the value of the assets of the Company and does not exclude the Real Estate Division. Even for determining the total compensation to be paid on nationalisation, the Task Force takes into account the total surplus lands of the Company and does not exclude any land belonging to the so-cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poraneous records like the balance sheet, profit and loss account, the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, etc. During the period 1975 to 1998 the property has been dealt with by the Petitioner as its own property. It has been let out to various Government bodies from time to time. The rent in respect of the subject premises has been collected by the Petitioner and the tax has always been paid by the Petitioner. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act furnishes a statutory defence to a person who has no registered title deed in his favour to maintain his possession if he can prove a written and signed contract in his favour and some action on his part in part performance of that contract. 12. From bare perusal of paragraph 35 of decision in Sitaram Mills Ltd. it is apparent that in the said case the learned Counsel for the Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union filed a detailed tabular chart before the Court to demonstrate that the Real Estate Division was part and parcel of the textile undertaking. In the said chart it was mentioned that 'of the remaining plots, on plot No. 4 admeasuring 9765 square yards there were certain old godowns of the textile mill and they wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the mortgage of any property referred in Sub-section (2) or any other person holding any charge, lien or other interest in, or in relation to, any such property shall be entitled to claim, in accordance with his rights and interests, payment of the mortgage money or other dues, in whole or in part, out of the amounts specified in relation to such property in the First Schedule, but no such mortgage, charge, lien or other interest shall be enforceable against any property which has vested in the Central Government. 4(6) If, on the appointed day, any suit, appeal or other proceeding of whatever nature in relation to any property which has vested in the Central Government Under Section 3, instituted or preferred by or against the textile company is pending, the same shall not abate, be discontinued or be, in any way, prejudicially affected by reason of the transfer of the textile undertakings or of anything contained in this Act, but the suit, appeal or other proceeding may be continued, prosecuted or enforced by or against the National Textile Corporation. Thus, it is clear that all other rights and interests in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Suresh Chandra Paul, Shyam Lal v. M. Shyamlal and 76 Corpus Juris Secundum 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reason of the above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is stated that the term relate is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned that relating to has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to concerning with and pertaining to . The expression pertaining to is an expression of expansion and not of contraction. 17. The First Schedule of the 1995 Act provides the amount which the Central Government has to pay to the owner of every textile undertaking for the transfer and vesting of such undertaking to it. This provision cannot be the starting point of investigation as to which amount relates to which property or as a guide to construction (See paragraph 54 of Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 299). In the said case of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
