SRI S.K. SARMA versus MAHESH KUMAR VERMA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 17-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI S.K. SARMA 
A 
v. 
MAHESH KUMAR VERMA 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Railways Act, 1890; 
Section 138: Recovery of Possession of the premises from employee 
upon retirement-Challenged on the ground that the premises does not C 
belong to Railway Administration-Held, admittedly the occupant-employee 
was given possession of the premises when he was a Railway employee-
Hence he is estoppedfrom questioning the right of the Railway Administration 
over the premises-Vacant possession of the property to be handed over to 
Railway Administration-Direction issued-Indian Evidence Act, 1872; D 
Section I 16. 
Respondent was provided official accommodation as per his entitlement 
when he was in service in Railways. He did not vacate the premises upon his 
retirement from service as railway administration failed to prove lease 
document of the property in its favour. Railway administration tiled a complaint E 
under Section 138 of the Railway Act for recovery of possession of the 
premises in question. Trial Court allowed the application. Respondent-
employee tiled a Criminal Revision Petition which was allowed by the High 
Court. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that High Court materially erred in F 
not applying provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, and that since the 
property was handed over to its employee as licensee, as per service conditions, 
ownership was not required to be proved by the Railway administration. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the appellant must 
establish subsisting tenancy; and that since Section 138 does not include the G 
expression "retirement" and it is not applicable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The object of Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act is to H 
439 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A provide speedy summary procedure for taking back the railway property 
detained by the railway servant or his legal representative. Properties include 
not only dwelling house, office or other building but also books, papers and 
any other matters. This would mean that the Section embraces in its sphere 
all unlawful detention of any railway property by the railway servant Further, 
B from the ingredient, it is clear that a railway servant who is discharged or 
suspended from his office, dies, absconds or absents himself would include a 
railway employee who is removed, retires or dismissed from service. It would 
certainly include employees who retire at the age of superannuation as in the 
present case. [443-H; 444-A, Bl 
C 
Union of India and Anr. v. B.N. Prasad, [19781 2 SCC 462 and S.L. 
Kapoor v. Emperor, AIR (1937) Lahore 547, relied on. 
D 
Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Asanso/e, v. Suresh 
Chandra Chakravarty, AIR 1957 Cal. 97 and Arjun Babloo Tukaral v. G. V. 
Javalkar, AIR 1981 Born. 72, approved. 
2. Once it is admitted that respondent was given possession of the 
premises in question, as he was entitled for the same, he could not be permitted 
to deny the title of the Railway administration. Admittedly, respondent was 
inducted because he was in railway service. Therefore, he is estopped from 
challenging the title of the appellant over the premises in question. Such 
E estoppel continues to operate so long as licensee or sub-tenant has not openly 
restored possession by surrender to such person. This rule of estoppel would 
cease to operate only after such licensee or sub-tenant has been evicted. 
Respondent cannot be permitted to contend that property was not belonging 
to the Railway administration. [445-A, E; 446-F) 
F 
S. Thangappan v. P. Padmavathy, 11999[ 7 SCC 474 and Vashu Deo v. 
Balkishan, 12002) 2 SCC 50, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 960 
of2002. 
· G 
From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.10.200 I of the Kolkata High 
Court in Crl. R. No. 1722 of 1986. 
Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solcitor General, Tara Chandra Sharma, Mrs. 
Anil Ktiyar and R.N. Poddar, for the Appellant. 
H 
S.K. Dholakia. Pradip Tarafdar, Parthapratim Chaudhuri and K.S. Rana, 
-
SRI S.K. SARMA v. MAHESH KUMAR VERMA [M.B. SHAH, J.] 441 
for the Respondent. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Leave granted. 
Short question involved in this appeal is whether the provisions of B 
Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "the 
Railways Act") can be invoked for taking back possession of the p

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