Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the grant of 28.70 acres of government land in Anamallai, Valparaj Taluk, Coimbatore District to the appellant club for sports and recreation purposes. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notice on May 22, 1992 terminating the licence under Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895. The notice was served on the club's secretary on May 23, 1992, and on the same day the State resumed possession with police assistance. The appellant challenged the resumption in writ proceedings. A single judge of the Madras High Court allowed the writ petition on August 17, 1992, but the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1055 of 1992 upheld the termination and held that there was no legal impediment to resumption without invoking the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The central legal issue was whether the State, after terminating a grant in accordance with its terms, could unilaterally resume possession without following the statutory eviction procedure. The appellant argued that even if termination was valid, resumption without notice and without following the Eviction Act was unauthorized. The State contended that after termination the appellant had no right to remain in possession and that the State could resume possession under the terms of the grant, making the Eviction Act irrelevant. The Supreme Court rejected the State's argument and held the High Court's view incorrect in law. The Court relied on a long line of precedents, including Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Pd. Singh, Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, and East India Hotels Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank, which established that a lessor, even the State, cannot take extra-judicial possession by force after termination of a lease or grant. The rule of law demands that possession be resumed only through due process. The Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 provides the appropriate procedure: 'premises' includes land, and Sections 4 and 5 require issuance of a show cause notice and an opportunity to be heard before eviction. The State failed to follow this procedure. The Court observed that although the grant was terminated, the appellant had been in settled possession for a long time and could not be treated as a rank trespasser. Law respects possession even without valid title and prohibits self-help. Therefore, the State was not entitled to unilaterally resume possession. However, because possession had already been taken, the Court did not grant restitution, but it directed that no third party rights should be created in the property and declined to interfere with the order. The Court also noted the appellant's argument regarding entitlement to notice before termination but did not decide it, as the possession had already been resumed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Rule of Law and Due Process - Unilateral repossession after termination of grant violates due process - Government Grants Act, 1895 Section 3; Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 Sections 4 and 5 - The High Court upheld termination of licence but allowed resumption without PPE Act; Supreme Court held that even after termination, State cannot take possession unilaterally and must follow statutory procedure - Held that possession can be resumed only in manner known to or recognised by law (Paras Not mentioned). B) Property Law - Possession and Eviction - Settled possession cannot be disturbed by force - Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 6 - The appellant remained in settled possession for long time under grant; after termination they are not rank trespassers; State cannot dispossess without due course of law - Held that law respects possession even without valid title, self-help is prohibited (Paras Not mentioned). C) Statutory Interpretation - Applicability of Public Premises Act - Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 Sections 3(d), 4, 5 - 'Premises' includes land; Act prescribes show cause notice and inquiry before eviction; State failed to follow this procedure - Held that PPE Act procedure applies to grants made under Government Grants Act (Paras Not mentioned). D) Civil Procedure - Right to Property and Legal Remedy - No extra-judicial re-entry by lessor - Government Grants Act, 1895 Section 3; Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 6 - The expression 're-entry' in lease deed does not authorize forcible dispossession; lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law; State is under additional inhibition of legal pedigree - Held that even if grant terminated, State must take legal action (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether resumption of possession unilaterally after determination of grant in manner provided under the grant itself is valid in law without following the procedure under Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was incorrect. After determination of grant under Government Grants Act, the State is entitled to resume possession, but resumption does not mean unilateral taking without recourse to law; procedure under Sections 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 must be followed. Since possession had already been resumed, no direction for restitution was given, but the Court directed not to create third party rights in the property and declined to interfere with the order.
Law Points
- Government cannot take extra-judicial possession after termination of grant
- lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law
- due course of law requires proceedings before duly constituted tribunal
- rule of law prohibits self-help
- unauthorized occupant can be ejected only in manner provided by law
- Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act requires show cause notice and inquiry before eviction
