B.K. RAVICHANDRA vs UNION OF INDIA. Supreme Court, 24-11-2020
| Judge | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT |
| Parties | B.K. RAVICHANDRAUNION OF INDIA |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-001460-001460 / 2010 |
| Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1460/2010
B. K. RAVICHANDRA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This appeal by special leave questions a judgment of the Karnataka High
Court
1
. The High Court rejected the appellants’ claim to direct the respondent
(hereafter called “the Union”) to vacate their lands, leaving it open to the latter to
initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of certain lands (which belonged
to the appellants).
2. Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Union, enacted
the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable properties Act, 1952 (hereafter
called “the Requisitioning Act”). It was brought into force on 15.03.1952.
2
The
object of the Act was to enable the Union to requisition or acquire immovable
property if the competent authority was of the opinion that any property was
necessary for a public purpose. By Section 1(3), the Requisitioning Act was to be
1
Dated 11.01.2008 in W.P. 8340/2006
2
By virtue of Section 1(3), the Act was initially temporary, and to remain in force for six years.
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2020.11.24
13:45:33 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2
in force for six years. Section 3 clothed the Union with the power to requisition
properties for any public purpose; Section 7 provided the procedure to
requisition (or acquire) lands. It also spelt-out the condition precedents for
exercise of the power. Section 8 provided for compensation with regard to
property. Section 8(2) laid out the principles applicable for determination of
compensation for the property as a recurring one
3
. On 27.02.1958, the
Requisitioning Act was amended and the period of its operation extended. In the
meanwhile, the Defence of India Act, 1962 (hereafter referred to as “the DIA”)
was enacted by Parliament empowering the Central Government with powers
akin to those enacted under the Requisitioning Act. The Union invoked its
powers under the DIA and requisitioned the three described properties which
belonged to the predecessor of the appellants (hereafter referred to as “the suit
lands”). These comprised of Survey Nos. 101/1 & 101/2 - the two survey
numbers aggregating 2 acres 39 guntas and Survey No.104 (2 acre 8 guntas) in
Byppanahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. The then owner, i.e. late B.M.
Krishnamurthy, the appellants’ predecessor handed over the possession of the
suit lands under protest; these were taken over under Section 30 of the DIA. The
competent authority fixed the compensation for these lands by order dated
3
Section 8(2) (a) provided inter alia, as follows:
“a recurring payment in respect of the period of requisition of a sum equal t o the rent which would have been
payable for the use and occupation of the property, if it had been taken on lease for the period.”
Section 8 (2) (b) provided for payment of
(b) such sum or sums, if any, as may be found necessary to compensate the person interested for all or any of the
following matters, namely:
(i) pecuniary loss due to requisitioning;
(ii) expenses on account of vacating the requisitioned premises;
(iii) expenses on account of reoccupying the premises upon release from requisition; and
(iv) damages (other than normal wear and tear) caused to the property during the period of requisition,
including the expenses that may have to be incurred for restoring the property to the condition in which
it was at the time of requisition.
To continue reading
Request your trial