HARISH CHANDRA NIGAM versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 21-01-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

809 
HARISH CHANDRA NIGAM 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
January 21, 1980 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Defence of India Act, 1962, se!ctions 29 and 35(1) scope of-RequiSitioii 
, 
crders issued to the person actually in possession, but while issuing re'ijuisl-
tion orders, possession ordered to be given to the State and not to the individuals 
.from whom taken-Propriety of the order. 
The appellants in both the appeals were allotted a plot each "provisionally 
subject to the final approval of Government" and possession thereof was 
also given in 1956. Six years later by letter dated 
31-10-62 they were 
informed that "the State Government has not approved· the allotment in your 
favour and the provisional allotment made in your favour stands cancelled". 
Steps were to be taken for the eviction as per the said J~tter of cancellation. 
but before any action was taken, the District Magistrate requisitioned the 
·said plots for defence· purposes under section 29 of the Defence of India 
Act, 1922. The letters of requisition were addressed to the 
apjiellants and 
poosession taken. 
No steps were taken by the Department for taking formal 
-or symbolical possession of the plots in question after they were requisitioned 
'by the Magistrate. Later on, while derequisitioning the said plots under section 
35(1) of the Defence of India Act 1962, the Magistrate "specified the Direc-
tor of Industries, Kanpur as the person to whom the possession of tlte said 
plots shall be given". 
Possession was given accordingly and the Director of 
Industries in CA 560/70 in turn allotted the-plot covered in it to one Mrs. B. K. 
Anand respondent 5 therein. 
The writ Petitions filed by the appellants in the High Court challenging 
...__ 1he said orders falled and hence the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing CA 559/70 and dismissing CA 560/70, the Court, 
HELD : Tb,e inquiry envisaged under sub section (I) of section 35 of the 
Defence of India Act, 1962, is necessitated only if facts and events taking 
place after' ~equ~ition necessitate it. 
Otherwise not. 
As for example, sup· 
pose, possession Of a property is taken from X and after requisition be 
dies and dispute starts between his heirs as to who is. entitled to get back the 
:Property. A summary and prima facie inquiry may be made under sul>~s. (1) 
and property may be released in favour of the person who may be entitled to the 
·possession of it in the opinion of the Government. 
Of course such a· decision 
would be subject to the adjudication of the rights of the parties in accordance 
with sub-s. (2). [814 C-BJ 
Facts. anterior to the requisition are not necessary to be investigated for 
release of the property because the property has to be released in favour of 
the person from whom possession was taken. If it were not so then it would 
l>e enlarging the scope of the inquiry envisaged under sub-s. (I) of s. 35 of 
A 
B 
~ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
810 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980) 2 S.C.R: 
A 
the Act and the power of the Government to adjudicate upon anterior title 
of the various claimants to the property. 
This is not the scope of the 
inquiry. [814 E-F] 
1"ecbnically speaking on a correct interpretation of the· law the property 
on de~requisition; ought to have been released in favour of the· two appellants 
in the two appeals from whom possession was taken at the time of requi· 
B 
sition. 
The requisition was effected by an order in writing addressed to the 
person in possession of the property in accordance with sub-s. (2) of s. 29. 
He may not be the owner of the property. 
But on requisition possession was 
taken from him. [814 C-D, F-G] 
,..
[The Court, however, passed a qualified and conditional order in terms]. 
_ _
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 559-560 of 
1970. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated 
24-1-1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 511 
of 1968 connected with Special Appeal No. 512 of 1968. 
D 
R. K. Garg and V. J. Francis for the Appellant. 
E 
F 
G 
;B 
Madan Bhatia for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWALIA, J.-These two appeals by special leave have been 
heard together as common questioos of law and fact are involved in 
them. We shall state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 
559 of 1970 
in which the appellant is Shri Harish Chandra Nigam. 
The facts of 
the other appeal viz. 
Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1970 in which the 
appellant is Shri Amar Singh are almost iden

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.