PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LTD. versus WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
1
   [2021] 3 S.C.R. 1
PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LTD.
v.
WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING
CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 738-739 of 2021)
MARCH 01, 2021
[R. F. NARIMAN AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary
Provisions) Act, 1947 – Requisition of Premises – Scope of s. 10B –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4 and 17(4) – Premises owned by
appellant was requisitioned under the West Bengal Requisition Act
by WBMDTCL – s. 10 B was inserted by way of amendment in West
Bengal Requisition Act which provides that property requisitioned
under the said act had to be released by the State Government on
or before the expiry of a period of 25 year from date of requisition
– After the lapse of said period, premises was not released, however,
by way of notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the
premises was sought to be acquired for the public purpose for
providing the office of WBMDTCL – Said notification was challenged
before Single Judge of High Court, in the mean time another
notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued, this time by
invoking the urgency provision u/s 17(4) – Single Judge struck down
the composite notifications by holding that the urgency provision
was wrongly invoked and directed WBMDTCL to vacate premises –
The Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of Single Judge
and set aside the order of acquisition and directed that the vacant
possession of the premises should be handover to appellant – It
was also observed that WBMDTCL had been enjoying the said
property without paying any money subsequent to the expiry of 25
years – It was further held that the Chief Judge, City Civil Court
shall asses the compensation for the period of 16.08.1998 till the
possession is made over to appellant – Three separate appeals were
filed before the Supreme Court against the said order, one by the
State and second by appellant only on the limited ground, namely,
compensation cannot be assessed by District Judge and third one
by WBMDTCL – Held: The impugned judgment of Division Bench
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
of the High Court is correct in law as the State was on notice from
the date of insertion of s.10B, that the Premises would have to be
released on or before 15.08.1998 – This gave the State the time of
11.5 years to act and acquire the premises but State issued the
notification long after the requisition period lapsed – Hence, the
appeal filed by the State are dismissed – Appeal filed by the appellant
on the limited ground, namely, compensation is allowed as it is clear
from the cursory reading of the provision that the compensation for
the illegal occupation of the premises cannot be assessed by the
District Judge u/s 11(1)(b) of the West Bengal Requisition Act, as
s.11(1) refers to compensation during the period of requisition and
not after the property continues to remain with the state without any
authority of law even after the requisition period ends – Hence, the
impugned judgment of the Divison Bench of the High Court is set
aside to that extent – Arbitrator is appointed to determine the
compensation that is payable by way of damages for occupation of
the premises without any authority of law – WBMDTCL directed to
vacate the premises.
Constitution of India: Art. 12 – State – Unlawful Possession
– Held : WBMDTCL, which is a “State” within the meaning of Art.
12 of Constitution of India, continued in unlawful possession of
the premises since 15.08.1998 without paying a single pie towards
compensation till date – Therefore, arbitrator is appointed to
determine the compensation that is payable by way of damages for
occupation of the premises without any authority of law.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On the facts of this case, the impugned judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court is correct in law. In this
case, the State was on notice from 31.03.1987, i.e., from the date
of insertion of section 10B in the West Bengal Requisition Act,
that the Premises would have to be released on or before
15.08.1998. This gave the State the time of 11.5 years to act and
acquire the Premises. Such acquisition could easily have been
done by way of a notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act before the lapse of the 25-year period, and would
have also preserved the valuable right contained in section 5A of
the Land Acquisition Act. As a matter of fact, as correctly held by

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