NDLI: Kaikhosrou (chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1971 ss. 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii) bona fide dispute on the question of ownership notice issued by the Estate Officer quashed Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) Public Premises (eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971: ss. 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii) – Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction – Summary remedy of the State qua person in possession of the land – On facts, predecessor of the appellants leased their property to the Government twice – Said land was requisitioned, derequisitioned and thereafter again requisitioned –Issuance of notice by Estate Officer u/ss. 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii), to the appellants, treating them to be unauthorized occupants of the suit property – Notice upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held:Appellants raised a bona fide dispute on the question of ownership of the suit property qua Union of India – A fortiori, in such case,Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke the powers u/s. 4 by resorting to a summary procedure prescribed in the Act by sending a notice u/s. 4 for appellant’s eviction from the suit property – Facts and the documents establish that there exists a bona fide longstanding dispute as to who is the owner of the suit property-appellants or Union of India – Union of India itself stated in this Court in earlier round of litigation that they would seek dispossession of the appellants from the property in accordance with law and, if need be, by filing civil suit in the civil court, however,the same was not resorted to – Respondents cannot now be permitted to go back from their statement and take recourse to a remedy of summary procedure under the Act, which is otherwise not available to them – Effect of quashing the resumption notice issued by the respondents by the High Court in relation to the suit property was that Union of India was not entitled to resort to any kind of summary remedy to evict the appellants from the suit property – Civil court alone could try and decide – Thus, the notice issued by the Estate Officer is quashed. Precedent: Binding effect of – Reading a decision to find out ratio decidendi – Three Judge Bench decisions – Judgment authored by one judge, and the other two judges concurred with the said view and the reasoning – Two concurring judges also supplemented their individual concurring reasoning on the same lines on which the lead judge expressed his view – No dissent inter se judges on any issue – Held: Is a law by majority and thus, a law laid down by the Court u/Art. 141 – Constitution of India – Art. 141.Doctrines/Principles: Principle of merger – Applicability of– Held: For merger to operate, the superior court must go into the merits of the issues decided by the subordinate court and record findings on its merits – If this is not done by the superior court, a plea of merger has no application in such a case and the order of subordinate court would continue to hold the field – On facts, this Court while disposing of the appeals by its order did not go into the merits of the various contentions which were decided by the High Court in its order and disposed of the appeal on the statement made by the respondents that they would take recourse to the remedy of the civil court by filing a civil suit – Thus, the principle of merger would not operate.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 378
Petitioner	Kaikhosrou (chick) Kavasji Framji
Respondent	Union Of India & Anr.
SCR	[2019] 4 S.C.R. 222
Judgement Date	2019-03-15
Case Number	5574

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Kaikhosrou (chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

The Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

M/s Band Box Private Limited Vs. Estate Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank and Anr.

The Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1971 (Single Document)

The PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971

Dr. Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Its Estate Officer

Hari Singh and Ors. Vs. The Military Estate Officer and Anr.

The rajasthan public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1964

The Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1978

Kaikhosrou (chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Kaikhosrou (chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

The Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

M/s Band Box Private Limited Vs. Estate Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank and Anr.

The Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1971 (Single Document)

The PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971

Dr. Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Its Estate Officer

Hari Singh and Ors. Vs. The Military Estate Officer and Anr.

The rajasthan public premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) act, 1964

The Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1978

Kaikhosrou (chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India & Anr.