SPECIAL MILITARY ESTATES OFFICER versus MUNIVENKATARAMIAH & ANOTHER

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 4 · Decided: 10-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SPECIAL MILITARY ESTATES OFFICER 
v. 
MUNIVENKATARAMIAH & ANOTHER 
JANUARY 10, 1990 
B 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
c 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 
1952: Sections 11 and 25( 1)-Award of compensation by Arbitrator 
under section 30-Defence of India Act 1962-Appeal-Maintainabi-
lity of. 
Defence of India Act 1962: Section 30-Requisitioning of land-
Award of compensation by Arbitrator-Appeal against-Not maintain-
able in view of Section 25 Requisitioning Act in respect of period prior 
to January JO, 1968. 
D 
The Defence of India Act, 1962 was passed by Parliament in the 
wake of the Chinese aggre.~sion to ensure public safety and interest in 
the Defence of India and Civil Defence and other connected matters. It 
had been passed when the Reqnisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable 
Property Act, 1952 was alneady in force. Under the provisions of both 
these Acts, immovable property could be requisitioned. Under both 
E Acts compensation on such requisition was determinable and payable 
and any 1>erson interested, being aggrieved by the amount of compensa-
tion so determined, could have an Arbitrator appointed to determine 
the same. The award of the Arbitrator on such determination under 
Section 8 was appealable under Section 11 of the Requisitioning Act 
before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the requisitioned pro• 
F 
perty was situated. The award of the Arbitrator made under Section 30 
in pursuance of the requisition made under Section 29 of the Defence 
Act was apparently final, though specifically not provided, since no 
right of appeal against the award of the Arbitrator had been conferred 
thereunder on any authority. 
o 
The Defence Act ceased being applicable as it perished on January 
10, 1968. Simultaneously Section 25 in the Requisitioning Act was 
substituted. 
Some lands belonging to the first respondent in either of the two 
appeals were requisitioned by the Union of India under Section 29 of the 
H 
Defence of India Act, 1962 by Issuing a notification to that effect on 
,4 
-~· 
' 
--
' 
ESTA1ES OFFICER v. MUNIVENKATARAMIAH 
5 
April 8, 1963 and possession was taken by the military authorities on 
May 28, 1963. The requisitioned property was not released before 
January 10, 1968 in terms of Section 25(1) of the Requisitioning Act. 
The Deputy Commissioner, the competent authority fixed Rs.280 
A 
per acre per annum as crop compensation. Respondent No. I not being 
satisfied sought a reference from the competent authority to an 
B 
arbicrator. The arbitrator went into the matter and made an award on 
June 30, 197 I. 
The Special Military Estates Officer being aggrieved with the 
award filed two appeals against the orders of the Arbitrator in the High 
Court, taking shelter under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and 
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. 
Since the properties that had been requisitioned had not been 
released before January 10, 1968, it had to be treated deemingly to have 
been requisitioned by the competent authority under the provisions of 
c 
the Requisitioning Act for the purpose for which such property was 
D 
held immediately before the said date and all the provisions of the said 
Act were to apply. 
Objections to the maintainability of the appeals were taken rely-
ing on proviso (a) to Section 25(1) on the ground, that the word 
I 
·determination' in the context meant determination only by the compe-
E 
tent authority under the Defence Act and since such determination held 
the field and was in force immediately before January IO, 1968, no 
challenge thereto could be made by appealing against the same, on the 
premises that a provision amongst all the provisions of the Requisition-
ing Act provided an appellate forum challenging the same. 
The High Court upheld the objection and dismissed the appeals. 
The Special Military Estates Officer appealed to this Court by 
special leave. 
Partially allowing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: l. The right of appeal is a substantive right conferred on 
a party by the statuie. The conferring of such right is not circumscri-
bed by the right being available at the time of the institution of the cause 
F 
G 
in the court of the first instance. In a given situation it may already be 
aYailable at the institution of the cause in the court of first instance or H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
a 
F 
a 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 1 S.C.R. 
may even be subsequently conferred. In either situation, witho\lt

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