LexMUNSHI RAM AND OTHERS versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c; D E F G -· H MUNSm RAM AND OTHERS v. DELffi ADMINISTRATION November 27, 1967' [S. M. S!KRI, J. M. SHELAT AND K. s. llEGDE, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 91, 447, 324, 149 and 148--Comp/ainant purchasing in public auction land c.cquired· by Central "Government under the Displaced Persons Act, 1954---'1fter issue of sale certificate Govern- ment purporting to give him delivery through a warrant issued by a Monaging Officer---1'fject of-Another person proved to be tenant and i.n possession--complainant's party on attempting to take possession repelled by force-whether right of private defence existed or acceded. Displaced Persons Act, 1954 s. 19(3)-&ope of. Certain land which was evacuee property acquired by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons Act, 1954 ancl under the management of the Managing Officer, was purchased by A at a public auction on January 2, 1961. Pro,isional delivery of the property was given to the vendec on October 10, 1961. A sale certificate was issued to him on February 8, 1962, and the actual delivery was given on June 22, 19'62, on a warrant issued by the Managing Officer. On July 1, 1962, when A, accompanied by a party, went to the land w'.th a tractor to level the land, the appellants attacked the complainant's party ancl caused injuries to some of them. Upon their subsequent proseeu- tion, the plea taken on their behalf was one of private defence. Their case was that their relation J was the tenant in the land for over 30 years and bi.. tenancy was never terminated; there was no delivery on June 22, 1962, and the alleged delivery was without the authority of law and of no effect; J therefore continued to be in possession of the property on July 1, 1962. The appellants had therefore used minimum force to prevent the com- plainant's party from taking forcible possession of the land. The Courts below accepted the prosecution version and convicted the appellants under ss. 447 and 324 read with 149 ancl 148 IPC. On appeal to this Court, HELD : Allo .ving the appeal : On the basis of the proved fact• it could not be said that the appellants had exceeded their right of private defence. f 465 Al It was not disputed that J was in possession of the field on June 22, 1962 and the record established that he .continued to be the tenant of the land even after the sale in favour of A. After the Lsue of the sale certi- ficate to A, the Government had no interest in the land and. the managing officer was not therefore competent to evict J. He had no interest in the land on June 22. 1962 and' could not have issued any warrant for the deliverv of the field on that date. The alleged delivery therefore bad no legal force; in the eye of the law it was non-est. [461 Bl There was n1> force in the contention that the delivery ln question was effected under s .. 19(3) of the Displaced Persons Act, 1954. The provi- sions of that Section annlv onlv to propertie• which are under the control of the managin2 officers or managin2 corporations and not to properties which have ceased to be evacuee properties. Furthermore, it was . not H6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 968] 2 S.CR shown that any action under sub-sections (1) and (2) of s. 19. which A was a condition precedent for taking ac1ion under sub-section S3), bad been taken a~ainst J. [460 HJ Normally before a tenant can be c\icred from bis holdinJ?. his tenancy mu't be terminated and the eviction should be done through a Court of competent jurisdiction. A who had become the owner of the land long hcforc June :!2. 1962 couJ<l not have evicted J from the land in the manner alleged. [459 EJ B Lallu Yeshll'n111 Singh v. Rao lagdish Singh mu/ 01/iers, [1968] 2 S.C.R. '.!03. It could not be soid that os A had. rightly or wrongly, taken possession of the property on June 22. I 962, J should have agitated the matter in a court of law and the appellonts had no right to take the Jaw in their own hands. The fact that some formalities were gone throu$ in pursu- ance of an unauthorised delivery orc.kr was no ground for holding th:tt ros'es.ion of the field hod passed to A. It is true that no one including the true 0\1,:ner has a right 10 <lisposscs.~ the trespasser by force if the trespasser is. in settled possession of the land .ind in such a case unJess he is eviclcd in due course of lavt, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the righlfut owner. llul stray or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.