LexNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. - • I 525 NATIOC\AL TEXTILE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS April 12, 1977 [A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] Sick Te.tt£le Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1914-Inc1anbra11ce- Meani11g of-"A'otificatjon issued under Land A'cquisition Act-If an incurn- brance. The Stat...-: Government issued two notifications under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking to acquire certain land belonging to a textile mill. A B When the Letters Patent Appeal of the Textile mil! was pending before the C High Court the mill was taken over by the Central Government and later the appeJlant \vas substituted for the original appellant. By virtue of s. 3 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 the management of every sick textile mill vested absolutely_ in the Central ·Government and later in the appellant. Section 4(2) of the Act provides that all property which vested in the Central Government shall, by force of such vesting, be freed and discharged from trust, obligation, mortgage, charge, lien and all otlier incu111brances affecting it and any attachment, injunction or decree D or order of a:iy court restricting the use of such property in any manner shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. The appellants• contention that by reason of s. 4(2) the t\\'0 notifications must be held to have become ineffective because the .section provides that all property vested in the Central Government shall be free from all incumbrailces affecting it was rejected by the High Court. Dismisstni; the appeal to this Court, HELD : The High Court was right in its view that the notification& issued E under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were not incumbrances and could not be held ~v have become inoperative on the land vesting in the Central. Government, [528 BJ 1. The te.:.-m "incumbrance" has not been defined in the Act, The dictionary meaning given to incumbrance is a claim, lien or liability attached to property. An incu.mbrance in. this sense has to. b~ a liability "attached to property", a burden or liability that runs with the land. The notifications issued under the Land Acquis'.tion Act are not a burden or liability attached to the property. F f528 Bl 2, .. 'Incumbrance" in the context of s. 4(2) means some burden or liability attached to the property like mortgage, charge, lien.etc. That this is so would appear from the words "all other_ incumbrances affecting it". Having said that the vesting '~·ill be free from tfust etc., sub-s. (2) goes on to add that "any attachment, injunction or· decree .... shall be deemed to be withdra\\-n" upon vesting. If "incumbrance" meant any kind of fetter, any attachment, injunction or decree or order restricting use of the propert}' \\'ould be· included in "all G other incumbra~ces" and it would have be!n quite unnecessary to mention them separately. This means that fetters on the property like attachment injunction or decree o:· order of any court restricting the use of the propertY which are deemed to have been withdrawn upon the property vesting in the Central Govern- ment are not really incumbrances within the meaning of the word as used in s, 4(2). [528 E-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 309 of 1976. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd January, 1975 of the Bombay Fli~h Court in Appeal No. 106 of 1969 in Misc. Petition No. 320 of 1964. 7-S02SC!n7 H 526 SUPREME COURT RE).'ORTS [1977] 3 S.C.R. A I. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for the Appellanfs. B c D E F G H M. N, Shroff for Respondents 1 and 2. V. P. Raman, Addi. Sol. Gen!, K. J. John and Shri Narain for Respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. Ahmedabad Jupiter Spinning Weaving and Manufac- turing O:>mpany Limited was the owner of 5\100 Sq. yds of land torm- ing part of its mill premises at Lower Pare! in Bombay which was sought to be acquired by the Maharashtra Government for a municipal ~chool. Notifications under sections 4 and 6 were issued on June 19, 1961 and May 29, 1964 respectively. The company filed a peti- tion in the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the notifica- tions on several grounds. A single Judge of the High Court having dismissed the writ petition on August 11, 1969 the company preferred a letters patent appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the management of the company was taken over
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.