SURESH CHANDRA DAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been taken in this appeal that it is ineffectively constituted and that even if the appellant succeeds in making out a case on the merits, no relief can be given to him by making any order on any of the respondents. The appellant is asking for a writ of mandamus in respect of a claim of money which he says he has against the Union of India on account of compensation for lands acquired from him under the Defence of India Rules before India's Independence. It is pointed out that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who were impleaded as holders of certain posts under respondent No. 1, the Union of India, had ceased to hold those posts even before the trial Judge made his order and that the appellant, instead of amending his petition, elected to proceed against the Union of India alone. He lost before the trial Judge and having lost appealed, but in the appeal he again impleaded respondents Nos. 2 and 3. They have appeared before us by a learned Advocate, but only to say that they have no longer any concern with the appellant's claim and that no direction given with regard to that claim could now be carried out by them, as they are holding other posts. It is not disputed that against respondents Nos. 2 and 3, no writ of mandamus, directing them to do what the appellant wants to be done can any longer be issued. There remains the first respondent, the Union of India. With regard to that respondent, it is contended by Mr. Roy that the Union does not reside within the jurisdiction of this Court and is not also otherwise within its jurisdiction and, therefore, if the Court were to issue a writ on the Union of India, there would be found no one within the Court's jurisdiction on whom the writ could be served. He states that the Pre-Partition Compensation Claims (Defence Services) Committee for East Bengal no longer exists and the Office of the Deputy Director, Lands and Hirings, has also been abolished. Only a skeleton Office is said to be now functioning at New Delhi and it is only that Office which is dealing with outstanding questions regarding payment of compensation for properties acquired during the time of the War, The appellant does not admit that all the offices of the Government of India, dealing with claims for compensation, have now been removed from the jurisdiction of this Court, and contends that some offices are still located in Calcutta and the Court could well direct the Union of India through them. If it were necessary to decide the preliminary point, we would have directed respondent No. 1 to file an affidavit as to the actual position regarding the present location of the relevant offices and would also have to go into the rather difficult question as to whether, where the Union of India was the sole party-respondent in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court could in any case entertain the application and make an effective order. As, however, we think that the appeal cannot succeed on the merits, we do not find it necessary to deal with the preliminary point.

(2.) Turning now to the merits, the appellant's case is that during the year 1942-43, extensive landed properties of great value situated at Kurmitola in the District of Dacca were requisitioned from him by the then Government of India for the construction of an aerodrome and for other military purposes. They were kept under requisition till July, 1945, and then permanently acquired. The acquisition having been made under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, the appellant's case is that he had become entitled to compensation under Sub-rule (4) of the Rule. He estimated the amount to which he was entitled at Rs. 10,19,875/- and lodged his claim with the then Government of India sometime in 1948. Receipt of his claim was acknowledged and he was informed that his claim for the period prior to 15-8-1947, had been referred to the Lands, Hiring and Disposal Services Directorate, New Delhi, for necessary action and that he was to address any further communication he desired to make to that body. A considerable volume of correspondence followed without any tangible result. At last, by a letter dated 7-5-1951, the appellant was informed that his claim had been referred to the Pre-Partition Compensation Claims (Defence Services) Committee for East Bengal and that the decision of that body was to be awaited. Nothing, however, followed and after a fruitless waiting for two more years, the appellant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Union of India, Sri M. N. Anand, Deputy Director, Land and Hirings and Sri N. C. Sen, Chairman, Pre-Partition Compensation Claims (Defence Services) Committee for East Bengal, for a writ of mandamus, directing them to pay him compensation and damages, as claimed, or to determine the amount payable or appoint an arbitrator, as contemplated by Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939, without any further loss of time. A Rule was issued on that application by Sinha J., but at the final hearing, Bose J., discharged the Rule. Thereafter, the present appeal was preferred.

(3.) Before the learned trial Judge, the appellant appears to have based his case on a number of documents as also the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947. His claim was resisted by the Union of India who contended that neither the documents referred to, nor the Rights, Property and Liabilities Order entitled the appellant to make the claim he was making. Other objections, quite a good many in number, of a technical character were also taken on behalf of the Union of India. The learned Judge rejected the contentions of both the appellant and the Union of India and while holding that the technical objections put forward by the Union had no substance, held that equally had the appellant's case none.