SAVATRAM RAMPRATAP MILLS versus RADHEYSHYAM S/O LAXMINARAYAN GOENKA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 20-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
SAVATRAM RAMPRATAP MILLS
v.
RADHEYSHYAM S/O LAXMINARAYAN GOENKA (D) THR.
LRS. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 751 of 2008)
AUGUST 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,
1971: s.3(b) – Public Premises situated at Akola – Notice issued
under the Act to attend proceedings at Mumbai – Whether the
proceedings in relation to such public premises can be initiated under
the Act at Mumbai or it has to be initiated at Akola – Held: The
Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the public
premises falling in the local limits in the notification – In the instant
case, the proceedings in relation to such public premises could only
be initiated at Akola, that being the area falling in the local limits
specified in the notification for exercise of powers by
Estate Officer.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Construing the expression “local limits within
which” occurring in Section 3(b) of the Act, the High Court rightly
held  that the Estate Officer has to exercise its jurisdiction in
relation to the public premises falling in the local limits specified
in the notification. Since in this case, the notification in clear terms,
specified that the Mill is situated at Akola, a fortiori, the
proceedings in relation to such public premises under the Act
could only be initiated at Akola-that being the area falling in the
local limits specified in the notification for exercise of powers by
the Estate Officer. The High Court was, therefore, right in
interpreting Section 3(b) of the Act and, in consequence, was
legally justified in quashing the notices impugned in the writ
petition as being without jurisdiction. [Paras 15, 16]  [932-E-G]
929
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 929
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 751 of
2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2007 of the High Court
of  Judicature at  Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 46 of 2004.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 9700/2014 and 9704/2014
Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., D. M. Nargolkar, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar,
Gagan Sanghi, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
In Civil Appeal No. 751 of 2008
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
16.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in L.P.A. No.46  of 2004 whereby
the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant herein and upheld the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by the
Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1795 of 2003 by
which the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was allowed and
the order passed by the Estate Officer of the National Textile Corporation
Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein) was set aside.
2.
Few facts need to be mentioned infra for disposal of the appeal,
which involves a short question.
3.
The appellant was originally a privately owned Company
situated at Akola (Maharashtra). It was engaged in the business of
manufacture of cotton. This Mill was later taken over by the National
Textile Corporation (Maharashtra) Ltd., which is a subsidiary of NTC-a
Government of India Undertaking.
4.
Since the appellant became the Government of India
Undertaking, the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) became
applicable to the appellant’s Mills.
5.
On 25.06.1993 and 04.04.2003, the Estate Officer of the
appellant issued the notices under Sections 4 and 7 (3) of the Act to
respondent No.1’s  predecessor,  who was alleged to be in an unauthorized
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
occupation of the appellant’s premises, and called upon him to vacate
the premises specified in the notices. He was, however, asked to attend
the proceedings, pursuant to the notices, at Mumbai.
6.
Respondent No.1’s  predecessor felt aggrieved by the issuance
of the notices, particularly, that part of the notices, which had directed
him to attend the proceedings at Mumbai, and filed a writ petition in
High Court of Bombay at Nagpur questioning the legality and validity of
the notices.
7.
 The challenge to the notices was essentially on the ground
that when the public premises in question is situated at Akola then the
proceedings in relation to such public premises has to be held only at
Akola rather than a

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