EDWARD KELVENTERS SUCCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-2-31
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 07,1983

EDWARD KEVENTERS (SUCCESSORS) PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ANSAL AND SAIGAL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. L AND D O [LAWS(DLH)-1998-5-15] [REFERRED .]
JOR BAGH ASSOCIATION REGD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
PALLAVA GRANITE INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
COSMOPOLITAN CLUB VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1999-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
B. KUMARAGOWDA & SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA PAL SINGH VS. RAVINDRA PAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SIR SOBHA SINGH & SONS P.LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-171] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. KANWAR INDERJIT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-73] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.L.JAIN, J. - (1.)A perpetual lease was executed on 16-10-1920 between the Secretary of State for India in Council and Edward Keventer of Aligarh Dairy Farm, Aligarh, in respect of a plot of land measuring 22.95 acres situated on Kitchner now Sardar Patel Road, New Delhi, on a premium of Rs. 573-8.8.00 and annual rent of Rs. 286.14.00. The lease was granted for construction of a dairy farm according to the plan approved by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, or his delegate. The said dairy farm was accordingly built and set up. The lease was transferred to the present petitioners, namely, Edward Keventers (Private) Ltd. sometime in 1946.
(2.)Conditions (5) and (6) of the lease provided that the lessee will not without consent of the said Chief Commissioner or a duly authorised officer appointed by the Governor-General erect or suffer to be erected on any part of the premises any buildings other than and except the dairy farm buildings, make any alteration in the plan or elevation of the said dairy or attached buildings or carry on or permit to be carried on the said premises any trade or business other than that of a dairy farm or use of the same or permit the same to be used for any purpose other than that of a dairy farm. Clause (12) inter alia provided that if there shall have been, in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner or such officer or body as the Governor-General in Council may authorise in this behalf, whose decision shall be final, any breach by the lessee or by any person claiming through or under him, of any of the covenants or conditions on his part to be observed or performed, then, and in such case, it shall be lawful for the lessor or any person or persons duly authorised by him, notwithstanding the waiver of any previous cause or right of re-entry upon any part of the premises or of the buildings thereon in the name of the whole to re-enter and thereupon the demise and everything therein shall cease and determine and the lessee shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever. I have referred to the substance of these clauses be- cause the case hinges upon what view I take of these provisions and I will have a little later some more occasion to deal with them.
(3.)It was alleged by the petitioners that for sometime past, the respondents have been trying in one way or the other, to acquire or take over the land demised as aforesaid. The first attempt was made by them sometime in 1950 when a notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued proposing to acquire the land. By an award dated 13-10-1952, the petitioners were awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 34.36 lakhs. But by a letter dated 26-12-1952 they denied that any such award had at all been made. On 5-1-1953, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court at Simla. On 8-1-1953, the respondents made a new award reducing the compensation to a paltry sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. The respondents at first refused to produce the earlier award of 13-10-1952, but they yielded to do so upon the directions of the High Court. By its judgment dated 20-10-1953, the said High Court held that the award of 13-10-1952 was a valid award and that the Land Acquisition Collector must, in order to take possession of the property acquired, pay compensation on the basis of the said award or in the alternative withdraw the acquisition. In the year 1953-54 the respondents dropped the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners claimed compensation from the respondents under section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and succeeded in extracting a compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,76,765 in the year 1957. Meanwhile, on 29-12-1955, the Land and Development Officer of the Government of India (herein L&DO) issued a notice (annexure B) that breaches of clauses (5) and (6) of the said lease deed have been committed by construction of sheds and by deviations from the approved plan and that unless the matter was rectified within 20 days, orders for re-entry would be made. The petitioners replied on 17-1-1956 to the Secretary, Local Self-Government, Delhi State, that the alleged breaches had been committed by their predecessors. Yet they had submitted plans for alterations and additions on 26-9-1955 and 23-12-1955 which may be sanctioned. On 25-1-1956, a letter was also addressed to the L&DO requesting him to abstain from taking any action.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.