LexM/S. JETHAN AND AND SONS versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r961 Slate of Bombay v. Fakir Umar Dhanse /(apur. J. r96I 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] S. 61. "The person unauthorisedly occupying any such land may be summarily evicted by the Collec- tor" and any crop raised in the land shall be liable to forfeiture, and any building, or other con- struction erected thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture or to summary removal." From the addition of these words it was sought to be argued that these words were added to authorise the Collector to remove any building or other construction put up on that land by a person in unauthorised occupation an1 it was argued that those words were specifically added for the purpose. It is wholly unnecessary for us to go into the question as to why that particular power was given to the Collector. In this case we are concerned with the meaning of the word " eviction " as used in s. 66 and in our opinion the meaning of those words is that on eviction land has to be restored to the original position so as to be used for the purpose for which it was given to the occupant. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed and the decree of the High Court affirming that of the trial court is set aside. The appellant will have its costs throughout. A ppeaJ, allowe.d. M/S. JETHAN AND AND SONS v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. (J. L. KAPUR and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) Appeal to Supreme Court-Certificate of fitness by High Court -Remand order, if and when final order-Substantial question of. law-Power of High Court-Constitution of India, Art. r33-Code of Cioil Pra<edure. r908 (V of ri)OB), s. ro9. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties a dispute relating to the supply of stone ballast was referred for adjudica- tion to an arbitrator who was appointed under the agreement. The arbitrator's awards were contested by the appellants but the trial court held that the dispute was properly referred and the awards were V'!lidly made. The High Court set aside the orders 3 S.C.R. SUl'RE:vIE COURT REPORTS 755 of the trial court and remanded the case for decision after fram- ing all the issues and giving the parties an opportunity to produce evidence. The High Court then granted a certificate of fitness or appeal to this Court under Art. l33(1)(c) of the Constitution. H e/d, that an order remanding a case without deciding any question relating to the rights of the parties is not a judgment, decree or final order within the meaning of Art. 133 of the Constitution. An order is final if it amounts to a final decision relating to the rights of the parties in dispute in the Civil proceeding. The power under s. 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been expressly made subject to Ch. IV, Part V of the Constitution an appeal lay under that section to this Court only against judgments, decrees and final orders. V. M. Abdul Rahman and Others v. V. D. K. Cassim and Sons and Another (1933) L.R. 60 I.A. 76, referred to. As the orders passed by the High Court did not .raise any question of great ·public or private importance and even the question of interpretation of Para. 3 of the first schedule of the Indian Arbitration Act was 'left open to pe tried by the Civil Judge, no certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court could be granted under Art. 133 of the Constitution. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 421 to 423 of 1957. Appeals from the judgment and order dated Febru- ary 18, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), at Lucknow in F.A.F.O. Nos. 11 to 13 of 1953. J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant. C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent. 1961. February 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J.-These three appeals were filed by the appellants M/s. J ethanand & Sons with certificate of fitness granted under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Consti- tution by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The appellants entered into three separate contracts with the Government of the United Provinces (now called the State of Uttar Pradesh) on March 20, 1947, May 27, 1947, and June 28, 1947, for the supply of stone ballast at Shankar Garh, District Allahabad. The contracts which were in identical terms contained the following arbitration ci11ouse; 97 M/s. ]ethanand and Sons v. State of Uttar Pradesh Shah ]. Jjs. ]ethanand and Sotis v. Stale of Uttar Pradesh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.