JAGDAMBA CHARITY TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MESSRS Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited - -a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the company) - -was engaged in manufacturing and production of Portland cement. It was ordered to be wound up and when proceedings for its liquidation were pending in this Court the Parliament enacted the Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1981 (for short, the Act) with a view to acquire and transfer the undertakings of the company. On the appointed day i.e. June 23, 1981 the undertakings of the company and its right, title and interest in relation to its undertakings by virtue of the Act stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government. Thereafter by a notification issued under Sub -section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, the undertakings of the company and its right, title and interest in relation to its undertakings as acquired by the Government were transferred to the Cement Corporation of India - -a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act (for brevity, the Corporation). It is alleged by the Corporation that since the properties of the company stood transferred to it, steps were taken by it to take possession of those properties including those now in dispute and the official liquidator who had earlier been appointed by this Court handed over the same to the Corporation.

(2.) THE first petitioner is a charitable trust and is stated to be functioning at Charkhi Dadri (Haryana). This petitioner claims that it was the owner in possession of a school building and also the building housing the ESI dispensary which have now been forcibly and illegally taken over by the Corporation under the garb of taking possession of the properties belonging to the company and transferred to it. The petitioner -trust is said to have sent a communication dated 7.9.1981 (Annexure P -6 with the writ petition) to the Corporation informing the latter that two buildings referred to above were the exclusive property of the trust and that the Corporation had no legal right whatsoever to claim these properties. The Corporation was, therefore, requested to instruct its personnel at Charkhi Dadri not to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the properties by the petitioner -trust. Since the petitioner -trust was not handing over possession of the aforesaid two properties to the Corporation, the latter sent a notice dated September 9, 1981 (Annexure P -7 with the writ petition) stating that the two properties belonged to the company and, therefore, by virtue of the Act and the notification issued by the Central Government the same stood transferred to the Corporation. Through the notice all concerned were informed that any person/agency who was in possession of those buildings should hand over the possession to the Corporation upto 5.00 P.M. on 16.9.1981 failing which action would be instituted to take possession of those properties. It is the firm stand of the Corporation that on receipt of this notice, Dr. B.R. Aggarwal acting on behalf of the petitioner -trust handed over possession of the aforementioned two properties to the Corporation in the afternoon on 16.9.1981 and an inventory was prepared at the time of handing over possession. On receipt of the notice the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the respondents including the Corporation be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner -trust from the two properties in dispute. This petition came up for hearing before the Motion Bench on September 16, 1991 when notice was issued and dispossession of the petitioners from the dispensary premises only was stayed. It is common case of the parties that the Corporation had taken possession of the properties in dispute on September 16, 1991. The petitioners claim that the Corporation took forcible and illegal possession whereas the Corporation contends that the possession of the dispensary premises was handed over by Dr. B.R. Aggarwal on his own on receipt of the notice referred to hereinabove. The petitioners then amended the writ petition challenging inter -alia the alleged illegal, unauthorised and discriminatory action of the Corporation in forcibly dispossessing them from the premises which, according to them, lawfully belong to them. It has also been pleaded that the school building too has been the sole and exclusive property of the trust since the year 1948 and the Corporation was not justified in forcibly taking its possession. The prayer made in the petition now is that the respondents, their servants, officers and agents be directed to restore to the petitioners the possession of the premises alleged to have been forcibly taken by the Corporation. A declaration has also been sought to the effect that the action of the Corporation was illegal and unauthorised and that the petitioner -trust is the sole and exclusive owner of the dispensary building and the school building at Charkhi Dadri.

(3.) MR . D.S. Nehra, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that this Court had granted stay of dispossession from the dispensary premises on 16.9.1981 and on the same day the Corporation admittedly took possession of the premises in dispute and this, according to the counsel, was done forcibly because it could not be assumed that the petitioners handed over possession on their own. The prayer made is that the Corporation should be directed to restore possession to the petitioners who are the lawful owners of the premises of the properties in dispute.