M/S ANAMALLAI CLUB versus THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 23-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MIS ANAMALLAI CLUB 
v. 
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 23, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) 
Act, 1975: 
Sectio11s 3, 4 a11d 5--Grant of lice11ce u11der s.3 of Govemmmt Grants 
C Act, 1895-Tennination of-Resumption of possession unilaterally by the 
Government without notice to the licencee--Held : State cannot take 
unilateral possession without recourse to the procedure provided under the 
Act-Since possession already assumed, 110 direction could be given-
Govemment Grants Act, 1895-Section 3. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
An. 226-Wiit jurisdiction-Recourse to for establishing title-Not a 
proper remedy. 
E 
Bishan Das & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1962] 2 SCR 69; State 
F 
G 
of U.P. & Ors. v. Maharaja Dhamiander Pd. Singh & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 
505; Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 203; 
East In.dia Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank, [1992] Supp.(.2)29 and Midnapur 
Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy, AIR (1924) PC 144, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 14549-50 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.96 of the Madras High 
Court in W.A. No. 1055, W.M.P. No. 11237 of 1992. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, V. Achuthan, Gopal Jain and Mukul Mudgal for the 
Appellant. 
V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondents. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
652 
ANAMALLIAICLUBv. GOVT.OFT.N. 
653 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the Division Bench Judg-
ment of Madras High Court dated September 24, 1993 made in Writ 
Appeal No. 1055 of 1992. 
A 
The undisputed facts are that the appellant was granted licence in B 
respect of an extent of 28.70 acres of Government land in Anamalai, 
Valparai Taluk of Coimbatore District for sports and recreation purposes. 
Notice was issued on May 22, 1992 terminating the licence under Section 
3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 (for short, the 'Act') which was 
served on its Secretary on May 23, 1992; the land was resumed and the C 
possession thereof was taken with the assistance of the police personnel on 
the even date. The appellant's writ petition was allowed by the learned 
single Judge by his order dated August 17, 1992 in Writ Petition No. 
7160/92 and giving directions therein. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-
State filed the appeal and the Division Bench in the impugned Judgment 
while upholding the termination of the licence under the Act, recorded a D 
finding that "there is no legal impediment at all for resumption of posses-
sion of the lands by the Government, without seeking any aid of the 
provisions of the PPE Act, after the determination of the grant in the 
manner provided in the grant itself." 
Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel, contended that even 
assuming that the termination of the grant was in accordance with the grant 
itself, as found by the Division Bench of the High Court, resumption of the 
possession without giving an opportunity to the appellant and following the 
procedure prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act (Eviction 
E 
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 (for short, the 'Evktion Act') is 
F 
unauthorised and unwarranted. The finding of the Division Bench is, 
therefore, clearly unsustainable in law. Shri Krishnamurthy, learned coun-
sel for the State, contended that the right of the appellant flows from the 
grant under which they came into possession. After determination of the 
grant by issuance of the notice in terms of the grant itself, the appellants G 
thereafter have no right to remain in possession. Therefore; the resumption 
of the possession by the respondents in terms of the grant is valid in law. 
In that situation, the need to take recourse to the provisions of the Eviction 
Act bears no relevance and need not be followed. 
The question is : whether the resumption of possession unilaterally, H 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A after determination of the grant in the manner provided under the grant 
itself, is valid in law as was held by the High Court? We think that the view 
taken by the High Court is not correct in law. In Bishan Das & Ors. v. State 
of Punjab & Ors. (1962] 2 SCR 69, a Constitution Bench of this Court had 
considered the question whether the Government would unilaterally take 
B possession of the land after termination of the lease. One Ramjidas had 
built a dharamasala, a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.