TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is no justification for applying the summary procedure under the Public Premises Act, nor has the Estate Officer any authority or jurisdiction to evict the Petitioner Under Section 5(2) of the Public Premises Act. There seems to be serious dispute about the title which dispute cannot be resolved under Public Premises Act. In our opinion, the invocation of the provisions of the Public Premises Act in the present case was wholly improper. The Estate Officer without any application of mind issued directions for putting locks and seals on the premises. In our opinion, due process of law in a case like the present necessarily implies the filing of suit by the Respondents for the enforcement of their alleged rights in respect of the subject premises. 2. While holding so the Division Bench of the High Court also set aside the order dated 23rd June, 2000 and notices dated 17th November, 2000 issued Under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the '1971 Act') by Estate Officer, National Textile Corporation (MN) Ltd. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: 3.1 The Respondent No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Moreover, the Appellant Corporation urged before the High Court that since conveyance deed was not executed between the erstwhile owner SSML and Respondent No. 1, it was merely an agreement to sell and hence, the subject premises got vested in the Central Government under the 1995 Act. 3.5 The High Court allowed the said writ petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 6th February, 2003. 4. The issue involved in the present appeal is: Whether in the facts and circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the Appellant before the Estate Officer against Respondent No. 1 under the 1971 Act should continue or the Appellant should be relegated to prefer a suit before the civil court as held by the High Court? 5. Learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Appellant made the following submissions: 5.1 The claim of Respondent No. 1 is based on unregistered agreement to sell which never fructified into a registered sale deed. Moreover, Respondent No. 1 is neither the owner of the land nor can it claim authorized occupancy pursuant to unregistered agreement. 5.2 The land in question got vested with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red into an agreement to sell dated 25th March, 1975 (ii) Respondent No. 1 was put in possession of the subject premises on 1st April, 1975 pursuant to the agreement to sell. (iii) Respondent No. 1 had paid the full consideration of Rs. 25 lakhs to SSML (Rs. 21,85,000/-, Rs. 1,15,000/-,Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 1,80,000/-). (iv) The sale took place pursuant to a Special Resolution passed at the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Company held on 2nd March, 1975. (v) The sale of subject premises was reflected in the Balance Sheet and in Schedule of Fixed Assets of SSML for the year ended 31st March, 1975. (vi) SSML accepted tenancy under Respondent No. 1 over an area of 5802 sq. ft. of the subject premises and was paying rent to Respondent No. 1 (vii) SSML paid capital gains tax on the sale of the subject property which is clear from the letter dated 28.01.1980 written by SSML to the Commissioner of Income Tax. (viii) Various Government authorities have since recognized that it is the Respondent No. 1 to whom the said premises belongs. This is clear, inter alia, from the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies also shows that the subject premises were never considered as a part of the textile undertaking after the same was sold to Respondent No. 1 in the year 1975. 6.6. It was submitted that the subject premises herein were not part of the assets or rights or leaseholds or powers or authorities or privileges or property of the textile company (SSML) immediately before 1st April, 1994. Since the subject premises and all rights in respect of these premises stood excluded from the textile undertaking of SSML in 1975, SSML had no "ownership, possession, power or control" in relation to the said premises and hence the subject premises stand excluded from the first part of Section 4(1) of 1995 Act. 6.7. It was further submitted that there is a serious dispute about title that cannot be resolved under the 1971 Act. The Appellant cannot be permitted to take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy. Due process of law in a case like the present necessarily implies the filing of a suit by the Appellant for enforcement of their alleged rights in respect of the subj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken by parties with regard to property in question. The said case related to the very same mill SSML. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay on a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by SSML while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 held that the surplus land appurtenant to the mill was not an 'asset in relation to the textile undertaking' within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and directed the Central Government to restore the possession of the said land to the Company. Being aggrieved by the said decision the Appellant corporation approached this Court. In the said case this Court held: 40....... The legislature in enacting the law for the taking over of the management of the textile undertakings therefore clearly had the intention of taking over the surplus lands of the Company. In our opinion, the High Court ought to have interpreted Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act in the context of Sub-section (1) thereof and the other provisions of the Act in consonance with the intention of the legislature. It was the inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not be out of place to mention that in an appeal arising out of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in respect of this very Mill, the Supreme Court has recorded in its judgment that the property in question has been sold by the textile undertaking prior to the commencement of the 1983 Act. There seems to be hardly any dispute about the factual position. The execution of the agreement dated 25th March, 1975 is not disputed. There is also no serious dispute that the entire consideration has been paid. Further the transaction is duly substantiated by the contemporaneous records like the balance sheet, profit and loss account, the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, etc. During the period 1975 to 1998 the property has been dealt with by the Petitioner as its own property. It has been let out to various Government bodies from time to time. The rent in respect of the subject premises has been collected by the Petitioner and the tax has always been paid by the Petitioner. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act furnishes a statutory defence to a person who has no registered title deed in his favour to maintain his possession if he can prove a written and sign....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents of whatever nature relating thereto and shall also be deemed to include the liabilities and obligations specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 5. 4(2) All property as aforesaid which have vested in the Central Government Under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall, by force of such vesting, be freed and discharged from any trust, obligation, mortgage, charge, lien and all other incumbrances affecting it, and any attachment, injunction or decree or order of any court or other authority-restricting the use of such property in any manner shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. 4(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the mortgage of any property referred in Sub-section (2) or any other person holding any charge, lien or other interest in, or in relation to, any such property shall be entitled to claim, in accordance with his rights and interests, payment of the mortgage money or other dues, in whole or in part, out of the amounts specified in relation to such property in the First Schedule, but no such mortgage, charge, lien or other interest shall be enforceable against any property which has vested in the Central Government. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been used interchangeably for among other reasons, which may include avoidance of repetition of the same phrase in the same clause or sentence, a method followed in good drafting. The word "pertain" is synonymous with the word "relate", see Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 17, page 693. 50. The expression "in relation to" (so also "pertaining to"), is a very broad expression which presupposes another subject matter. These are words of comprehensiveness which might have both a direct significance as well as an indirect significance depending on the context, see State Wakf Board v. Abdul Azeez, following and approving Nita Charan Bagchi v. Suresh Chandra Paul, Shyam Lal v. M. Shyamlal and 76 Corpus Juris Secundum 621. Assuming that the investments in shares and in lands do not form part of the undertakings but are different subject matters, even then these would be brought within the purview of the vesting by reason of the above expressions. In this connection reference may be made to 76 Corpus Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is stated that the term "relate" is also defined as meaning to bring into association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned....