UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusS. J. THANAWALA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 315
- Decided
- 26 February 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court correctly refrained from deciding the title issue and rightly referred the matter to the appellate tribunal, making the interim order operative.
Summary
The case concerned a salt factory operated by the respondents on a 138-acre leasehold that was due for renewal on 1 July 1983. The Union of India claimed title to the land and sought to compel the respondents to accept its title and obtain a renewed licence, while the respondents asserted that they held title under a Collector's order pending appeal. The High Court held that determining ownership or lease title was a jurisdictional issue that should be decided by the appellate tribunal, and therefore it refrained from adjudicating the title, leaving the interim order in force. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court was correct in not deciding the title and in referring the matter to the appropriate tribunal, emphasizing that title to the property is a condition precedent for licence renewal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the interim order continued pending the outcome of the pending appeal before the Collector. The Court directed the Government to pursue the appeal expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether title to the property or a lease is a condition precedent for the grant or renewal of a licence for a salt factory.
- Whether the High Court erred in refraining from deciding the title and referring the parties to the appellate tribunal.
- Whether the Government can compel the licensees to accept its asserted title pending the outcome of the Collector's appeal.
Subjects
Judgment
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
S. J. THANAWALA AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 26, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) B
Licem:e--Grant and Renewal of-Salt factory-Both Govemment and
respondents asserting their title to the prope1ty-Title to property or title under
a lease is condition precedent-High Cowt not gone into the question of title
and relegate_d the parties to the decision of the Tribunaf-High Cowt's views C
justified on the facts of the case-However it would be subject to the result of
the appeal-Till then the interim order passed by the High Court to continue.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4387 of
1996.
D
From the Judgment and order dated 29.7.1991 of the Bombay High
Court in Writ Petition No. 2333 of 1983.
AN. Jayaram, Additional Solicitor General, AD.N. Rao, Ms. Sush-
ma Suri and D.S. Mehra for the Appellants.
E
Ashok H. Desai, K. Madhava Reddy Krishan Mahajan, Arvind Kr.
Sharma, P.H. Parekh, Dr. R.B. Masodkar, K.L. Taneja and AM. Khan-
wilar for the respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court made on July 29, 1991 in Writ Petition
No. 2333/83. The admitted position is that one Hanumanbux had been
runni,ng salt works at Bombay. It had established salt factory at B'iandup G
Cirde on land admeasur.ng 138 acres 17 guntas and seabed etc., on the
basis of a lease which was due for renewal on July 1, 1983. When a notice
was issued by the appellants on June 30, 1983 calling upon the licensees to
execute a lease dead admitted the title of the appellants, they re!Siisted the
action in the above writ petition. The High Court in the impugned order H
1063
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 2 S.C.R.
r
i
A stated that whether the respondents are owners of the property or a lessees
and consequently whether the Government can compel the licensees to
-
concede to their title are jurisdictional issues. Since. the Collector had
already decided that the respondents had title to the property, which is a
condition for grant of a valid iicence, it was for the Government to consider
B, the renewal of the licences provided all the requisite conditions for renewal
of the licence were complied with. We are informed that the appeal has
already been filed against the order of the Collector and is pending. It is
for the Government to have the matter disposed of.
-
It is not in dispute that for grarit of renewal, title to the property or
C title under a lease is a condition precedent. The Government asserted its
title to the prqperty and called upon the respondents to accept their title
and have a licence issued from them. On the other hand, the respondents
asserted to have title to the property and claimed that they had a right
under the order passed by the Collector which is· subject matter in the
appeal. The High Court, therefore, rightly has not gone into the question
D of t.itle and relegated the parties to the decision of the appellate Tribunal
and to take action in furtherance thereof. The view taken by the High
Court, therefore, cannot be said to be unjustified on the facts of the case.
However, it will be subject to the result in the appeal and the action of the
appellants would be in furtherance thereof. Until then, the interim order
E passed by the High Court would continue. It would be open to the
appellants to have the appeal disposed of as expeditiously as possible and
have the matter decided accordingly.
G.N.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.