Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for De-requisition of Lands Under Requisitioning Act — Compensation Already Determined and Property Not Released. The Court held that the appellants' remedy lies in seeking compensation enhancement, not de-requisition, as the property was not released within the statutory period under Section 6(1A) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.

  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal by special leave against the Karnataka High Court's judgment dated 11.01.2008 in W.P. 8340/2006. The appellants, B.K. Ravichandra and others, sought directions to the Union of India to vacate their lands, which were requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1962 (DIA) in 1963. The lands comprised Survey Nos. 101/1, 101/2, and 104 in Byppanahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. The predecessor of the appellants, late B.M. Krishnamurthy, handed over possession under protest. Compensation was fixed on 18.12.1964 and approved in 1968. The DIA lapsed on 10.01.1968, and by Section 25 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Requisitioning Act), the requisition was deemed to be under the Requisitioning Act. The Requisitioning Act was amended in 1970, extending its operation and providing for release of property after 17 years. In 1972, the appellants' predecessor sought enhanced compensation, which was referred to an arbitrator under Section 8. The arbitrator awarded compensation at 6% per annum on capital value of land at ₹3 per square foot on 17.07.1975. The Union appealed, and on 21.07.1978, the appeal was disposed of by a joint memo remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, with the compensation fixation of 10.01.1968 agreed to be final. The Supreme Court had earlier held that awards under the DIA were not appealable. The appellants later filed a writ petition seeking de-requisition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the appellants' remedy lies in seeking compensation enhancement, not de-requisition, as the property was not released within the statutory period. The Court noted that the compensation had been determined and the appellants had not challenged the award. The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Requisition Law - De-requisition - Section 6(1A) Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - The appellants sought release of their lands requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1962, which were deemed to be requisitioned under the Requisitioning Act. The High Court rejected the claim, leaving it open to the Union to initiate acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the appellants' remedy lies in seeking compensation enhancement, not de-requisition, as the property was not released within the statutory period. (Paras 1-10)

B) Requisition Law - Compensation - Section 8 Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - The arbitrator determined compensation at 6% per annum on capital value of land assessed at ₹3 per square foot. The Union's appeal was disposed of by a joint memo remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, with the compensation fixation of 10.01.1968 agreed to be final. The Supreme Court noted that the compensation had been determined and the appellants had not challenged the award. (Paras 5-9)

C) Requisition Law - Deemed Requisition - Section 25 Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - The Defence of India Act, 1962 lapsed on 10.01.1968, and by virtue of Section 25, properties requisitioned under the DIA were deemed to be requisitioned under the Requisitioning Act. The Court held that the deeming provision continued the requisition and the compensation determined under the DIA was saved. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants are entitled to de-requisition of their lands under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, given that compensation has been determined and the property has not been released.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Karnataka High Court's judgment. The Court held that the appellants' remedy lies in seeking compensation enhancement, not de-requisition, as the property was not released within the statutory period under Section 6(1A) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.

Law Points

  • Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act
  • 1952
  • Section 6(1A)
  • Section 8
  • Section 25
  • Defence of India Act
  • 1962
  • Section 30
  • De-requisition
  • Compensation
  • Arbitrator's Award
  • Finality of Compensation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (SC) (11) 2

Civil Appeal No. 1460/2010

2020-11-24

S. Ravindra Bhat

B. K. Ravichandra & Ors.

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against Karnataka High Court judgment dismissing writ petition seeking de-requisition of lands.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought direction to Union of India to vacate their lands and release them from requisition.

Filing Reason

Appellants claimed that the requisition of their lands under the Defence of India Act, 1962, which was deemed to be under the Requisitioning Act, should be released as the statutory period had expired.

Previous Decisions

Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition (W.P. 8340/2006) on 11.01.2008, leaving it open to the Union to initiate acquisition proceedings.

Issues

Whether the appellants are entitled to de-requisition of their lands under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952? Whether the compensation determined by the arbitrator and agreed upon by the parties is final and binding?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the requisition period had expired and the property should be released. Union contended that the compensation had been determined and the appellants' remedy lies in seeking enhancement, not de-requisition.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi is that under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, once compensation has been determined and the property is not released within the statutory period, the owner's remedy is to seek compensation enhancement, not de-requisition. The deeming provision under Section 25 continues the requisition, and the compensation determined under the Defence of India Act, 1962 is saved.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court rejected the appellants’ claim to direct the respondent to vacate their lands, leaving it open to the latter to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of certain lands. The arbitrator’s award was appealed against by the UOI. ... On 21.07.1978, the Central Government’s appeal was disposed of in terms of a joint memo filed by the parties by which it was agreed that the matter with respect to determination of compensation would be remanded/remitted for fresh adjudication; however, the compensation fixation of 10.01.1968 was agreed to be final and binding.

Procedural History

The appellants filed a writ petition (W.P. 8340/2006) before the Karnataka High Court seeking de-requisition of their lands. The High Court dismissed the petition on 11.01.2008. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, resulting in Civil Appeal No. 1460/2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952: Section 1(3), Section 3, Section 6(1A), Section 7, Section 8, Section 8(2), Section 8(2A), Section 8(2B), Section 11, Section 25
  • Defence of India Act, 1962: Section 30
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for De-requisition of Lands Under Requisitioning Act — Compensation Already Determined and Property Not Released. The Court held that the appellants' remedy lies in seeking compensation enhancement, not de-requisition...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Defendant's Appeal Against Amendment of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit. High Court's Liberal Approach to Allowing Amendment for Enhancing Damages After 31 Years Upheld, with Issue of Limitation Kept Open for Trial Under C...