A K SIRCAR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GURDASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is a case of flagrant abuse of Government machinery to grab private property of the petitioner. Even after the petitioner was successful in a civil bout, the respondents in order to retain illegal possession took resort to the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 to legalise their unauthorised occupation.

(2.) A. K. Sircar is the petitioner who challenges in this writ petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution order dated October 5, 1988, Annexure P. 5, whereby respondent No. 1, the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, intended to requisition the building. The petitioner claimed to be owner of the building and vacant land known as 'happy School, Gurdaspur'. Originally Miss Dowrthy Giri Bala Sircar was the owner who died on October 30, 1977. Civil litigation regarding ownership of the property started wherein a decree was passed on June 6, 1978 holding Miss Bijeli Monica Sircar as the owner of the property. She executed a will on September 19,1967 in favour of the petitioner and two others namely Shri Enoch Sircar and Miss Leela Sircar, children of Shri P. K. Sircar. Under this will, the petitioner became entitled to half share of the property and the remaining half share went to the other two. The petitioner and the two others, owners, used to reside outside Gurdaspur. In their absence in the year 1979, the property in dispute was illegally occupied by officers of the State of Punjab. A number of representations were made to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, respondent No. 1, as well as to the Superintendent of Police but to no effect. Ultimately, a notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also issued and subsequently a civil suit was filed for possession of the house and the vacant site in the Civil Court at Gurdaspur on August 2, 1985. The suit was hotly contested. Suffice it to say that it was decreed on October 14, 1987 by the Civil Court, Gurdaspur inter alia holding the petitioner to be the owner and respondents in illegal possession. It was also held that the respondents did not occupy the building for any public purpose. Annexure P. 1 is the copy of the judgment.

(3.) FEELING not satisfied with the judgment aforesaid an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur on September 8, 1988, copy of judgment is Annexure P. 2. Apart from confirming the findings of the trial Court, strictures were passed about the high handed-ness displayed by the State Government in the matter. In spite of the decree having been obtained, which had become final, the petitioner was led to file execution in October, 1988. An application was filed on behalf of the respondents on October 4, 1988 under O. 41, R. 5 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying operation of the judgment and decree which were sought to be executed. This application was dismissed on October 5, 1988, copy of the application is Annexure P. 3 and copy of the order passed thereon is Annexure P. 4. In order to bypass the decree passed -in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 took resort to the provisions of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 as amended. He passed an order under S. 3 on October 5, 1988 i. e. the date on which executing Court had dismissed the application, copy Annexure P. 4. Copy of the order passed by respondent No. 1 is Annexure P. 5. This order is under challenge in this writ petition on various grounds.