HOWRAH MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANR. versus MD. SHAMIM AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HOWRAH MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANR. 
V. 
MD. SHAMIM AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ petition-Po/ice protection-Jn respect of property 
C of a company-A proposal to sell away a portion of the company's land as 
a means to revive the industry was approved by the Bl FR-Company owned 
vast extent of land out of which a portion was to be sold and the process 
for sale was at an advanced stage-Attempts were made by some persons 
to interfere with the possession of the company over the property-Writ 
D petition filed by company for necessary protection to the company to protect 
the property from unauthorized trespassers-Company agreed to meet the 
expenses for affording of such protection-High Court dismissed the writ 
petition-Correctness of-Held: This is a case where the State should be 
equal(v interested in seeing to it that the property was folly protected, until 
E 
F 
the scheme proposed by the BIFR is implemented and the revival of the 
industry is ensured-Since the company had agreed to meet the charges of 
protection the same is fz.xed at Rs. 10,0001 per day so that too heavy a slice 
of the price of the land is not spent on this score-State directed to give 
requisite protection to the property of the company-High Court judgment 
set aside-Police Regulation, Bengal 1943--Calcutta Thika Tenancy 
(Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, Ss. 5 & 6. 
The appellant-company was before the Board for industrial and 
Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for its reconstruction and a proposal 
to sell away a portion of its land as a means to revive the industry was 
G 
approved by the BIFR. The appellant-company owned a vast extent of 
land out of which a portion was to be sold and the process for sale was 
at an advanced stage. Attempts were made by the respondents to 
interfere with the possession of the appellants over the property and 
inspite of requests in that behalf, the police authorities did not render 
H the necessary help to the appellants. 
692 
HOWRAH MILLS CO. LTD. v. MD. SHAMIM 
693 
The appellants, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High 
Court for necessary protection to the appellants to protect the property 
from unauthorized trespassers. The appellants also prayed for affording 
protection for the purpose of repairing the compound wall of the 
property and for putting up a separate boundary wall protecting the 
portion to be alienated. The appellants offered that they would meet the 
expenses for the affording of such protection. A Single Judge of the High 
Court granted an interim order of protection. The respondent-State had 
all along supported the cause of the appellants for the rehabilitation of 
the industrial undertaking before the BIFR. 
A 
B 
Respondents 1 to 3, claiming to be assignees, of undivided shares 
C 
from a co-owner, filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High 
Court contending that disputed and intricate questions of title were 
involved in the writ petition and, therefore, the Single Judge could not 
have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of 
India to pass an interim order of protection. The Division Bench set 
D 
aside the interim direction of the High Court. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not possible to accept the contention of respondents 
1 to 3 that since they are raising some claim over a fraction of the 
E 
property, no relief can be granted to the appellants. At best, respondents 
1 to 3 are assignees of undivided shares from a co-owner, and prima 
facie, their rights, if any, are to sue for partition. Prima facie, they are 
not entitled to enter the property or to interfere with the possession of 
the appellants. If the property is protected from trespassers meanwhile, 
F 
it will only be to their advantage. Then, they can work out their rights 
without obstruction. (698-E-G) 
2. This is a case where the State should be equally interested in 
seeing to it that the property was fully protected, until the scheme 
proposed by the BIFR is implemented and the revival of the industry 
is ensured. Even otherwise, in a situation like the present, it is the duty 
of the police of the State to give necessary protection to the struggling 
industry to tide over the crises and protect its property from interference 
by lawless elements and unauthorized persons. Going by the Regulations 
666 and 669 of the Police Regulations, Be

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