Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India Through Secretary vs Mohd. Nayyar on 14 June, 2016
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, L. Nageswara Rao
CA 4645-46/2010
1
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos.4645-4646/2010
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MOHD. NAYYAR AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and
exemption from filing O.T. and c/delay and office report)
Date : 14/06/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
(VACATION BENCH)
For Appellant(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Alka Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. N.K. Karhail, Adv.
Mr. S.N. Terdal, Adv.
Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.S. Chadda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Alok Kr. Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Isha Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rajjan Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Garuav Tamwar, Adv.
Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
For R-9 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2016.06.14 Heard Mr. A.K. Panda, learned senior counsel for the 16:20:42 IST appellant-Union of India and Mr. A.S. Chadda, learned senior Reason:
counsel for the respondent Nos.1-3.
CA 4645-46/2010 2 The Union of India is aggrieved by the direction in the impugned order to hand over the property in question to the respondents-writ petitioners. The case of the respondents-writ petitioners is that they are the owners of the property, which was requisitioned by the Union of India and since the statutory period was over, they were entitled to possession thereof. This plea has been upheld by the High Court.
The stand of the Union of India is that the title itself vests in it and not in the respondents-writ petitioners. This plea was sought to be supported by the revenue records in the suit filed by the respondents-writ petitioners seeking declaration of title.
It is pointed out that Civil Suit No.49 of 1994 was filed by the respondents with regard to part of the compact piece of land and the said suit has been dismissed vide judgment dated 3rd November, 2008. In the said suit, one of the issues framed by the court was issue No.1, which is as follows:-
“Whether suit property vests in the Government of India as has been mentioned in para No.41 of the written statement?” It is further pointed out that against the afore-said judgment, an appeal being Civil Appeal No.147 of 2008 is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. It is submitted that since question of title has to be adjudicated by the civil court in the said appeal, the High Court should not have recorded a finding on the said issue against the Union of India.
CA 4645-46/2010 3 Without expressing any opinion on merits at this stage, we adjourn the hearing of these appeals to await the decision of the civil court in the pending appeal. We direct the appellate court to decide the appeal expeditiously and, as far as possible, within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed today. We also record the stand of the Union of India that it has no objection to the decision of the civil court on merits. It will be open to the parties to raise all contentions available to them under the law.
List the appeals after either of the parties mention the matter in the light of further development that may take place.
(Chetan Kumar) (Madhu Narula)
Court Master Court Master