HARISH CHANDER NIGAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by special leave have been heard together as common questions of law and fact are involved in them. We shall state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 559 of 1970 in which the appellant is Shri Harish Chandra Nigam. The facts of the other appeal viz. Civil Appeal No. 560 of 1070 in which the appellant is Shri Amar Singh are almost identical except one which shall be stated hereinafter. The plot concerned in Nigam's appeal is plot No. 60 and in the other appeal it is plot No. 6. Nigam made an application to the Director of Industries, Uttar Pradesh for allotment of the plot to him for industrial purposes. By an order dated November 22, 1956 the application was "provisionally accepted subject to the final approval of Government." Finally he was informed by the Manager of Industrial Estate, Kalpi Road Kanpur in his letter dated 31-10-1962 "that the State Government has not approved the allotment in your favour and the provisional allotment made in your favour stands cancelled." But it appears after the provisional allotment, Nigam was put in possession of the land. Steps were to be taken for his eviction after giving information as to the cancellation of the allotment to the letter aforesaid dated 31-10-1962. But before these steps were taken and possession was recovered from him the District Magistrate, Kanpur requisitioned the plot under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, hereinafter called the Act. This order is dated 7-12-1963. The order reads as follows:-

(2.) Pursuant to the above order possession was taken from appellant Nigam on January 2, 1964 and was handed over to the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur. No steps were taken by the Industries department for taking formal or symbolical possession of the plot in question after it was requisitioned by the District Magistrate. Then came the derequisition order passed by the district Magistrate under Section 35 of the Act on 20-11-1967. In passing it may be mentioned here that the appellant had kept his stores in two of the rooms standing in the land. But this fact is not very material for the purpose of deciding the matter in issue before us:

(3.) The de-requisition order reads as follows:-