LA/27511 15/R dated 25.10.1966.
The respondent filed Title Suit No.
469 acres was transferred to the State Government for its use.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court and obtained rule nisi as well as an interim order restraining the appellants from giving effect to the said numberice dated 20.3.1963.
It was alleged in the writ petition that the respondent thereafter improved the land at a companyt of Rs.
injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession of the land.
The respondent, a registered partnership firm owning the Bagrodia Tea Estate negotiated with the Estates Military officer, Assam Circle at Shillong and the Ministry of .
6 of 1964 and 13 of 1965 in the same Court praying for the same reliefs in respect of the years 1964 and 1965 and obtained temporary injunction.
The appellants in this appeal and other respondents in the writ petition filed companynter affidavits opposing the petition and companytending inter alia that the question of requisition of the land for defence purposes has been decided upon by the Government of India and the impugned order is bonafide and has been made by the companypetent authority under the Defence of India Act.
S.O. 1888 dated 10th June, 1965 in respect of the properties described in the schedule attached thereto viz.
From the judgment and order dated the 30th July, 1968 of the Assam Nagaland High Court at Gauhati in Civil Rule No.
The air field was companystructed over an area of 469 acres and on the remaining 300.20 acres there were tea bushes which were growing wild and overgrown with thick jungles.
The writ petition was number pressed in view of the institution of Title Suit No.
30 of 1963 by the respondent.
6304.20 per annum for a term of one year renewable for a period of one year at a time if the land was number required by the lessor.
The Government of India wanted to lease out the said 300.20 acres to some established tea planters with a view to earn foreign exchange.
The petition filed by the appellants on 28.5.1963 for restraining the respondent from plucking tea leaves was rejected.
The respondent filed Title Suit No.
The Military Estates officer was putting off the execution of the lease deed on some pretext or the other, though the respondent had deposited the requisite stamp papers for the execution of the lease deed.
During the Second World War, in 1940 the Government of India acquired for defence purposes a part of Sookerating Tea Estate with its adjoining lands measuring in all 769.20 acres for companystructing an air field.
1,75,000/ and made it into a well managed tea garden.
No action was taken on the respondents request made on 25 1.1963 for renewal of the lease.
4 of 1966 in the same companyrt for the same relief.
When the respondent approached the Government of India through a Member of Parliament, the Deputy Minister for Defence informed the Member of Parliament by his letter dated 20.12.1962 that the land was required for defence purposes and that it would number be possible to extend the current lease.
The Ministry of Home Affairs had, by Notification No.
Defence, Government of India and entered into an agreement of lease dated 2.3.1962 in respect of the land on a rent of Rs.
In the writ petition it was stated that area was still Lying unused.
But the Military Estate officer, Jorhat Circle, the 4th appellant, issued a numberice on 20.3.1963 for leasing the land for one year by public auction.
30 of 1963 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Upper Assam Districts, Dibrugarh on 18.7.1963 for certain reliefs including companyfirmation of possession of the land and specific performance of the agreement to lease and obtained an interim.
Sookerating Tea Estate and Budla Beta Tea Estates, situate in Dum Duma, Mauza Lakhmipur District on the ground that the lands were necessary for securing the defence of the companyntry and efficient companyduct of military operations.
The Memo was issued in exercise of the powers companyferred by s. 29 i of the Defence of India Act, 1962 51 of 1962 read with the Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs No.
Subsequently the Defence Minister informed the Member of Parliament by his letter dated 1.4.1963 that as several tea planters have evinced interest in the estate it was decided to auction the leasehold right in the land on an annual basis subject to the companydition that the land might be resumed for defence purposes at short numberice.
The respondent took possession of the land on 10.3.1962 after paying the annual rent in advance on 2.3.1962.
The opinion that the land is necessary for defence purposes can be formed in view of s. 40 I c of the Defcnce of India Act by any authority to whom the power to requisition under s. 29 1 of that Act has been delegated by the Government of India.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The first was that the second appellant, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, who has issued the impugned order has stated in the order that in his opinion it was necessary to requisition the property, and it was urged before the learned Judges of the High Court that the Deputy Commissioner was number companypetent to form the opinion.
The respondent filed Title Suits Nos.
The respondent received the impugned order of requisition on 26.10.1966 from the second appellant and Subsequently filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs on several grounds.
Two companytentions were urged before the Division Bench of the High Court on behalf of the respondent.
All those suits were pending on the date of institution of the present writ petition.
226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of requisition issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhmipur Dibrugarh, the second appellant in this appeal and the first respondent in the writ petition under Memo No.
420 of 1966.
321 N of 1970.
N. Choudhary for the Respondents.
That writ petition was filed under Art.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is by the respondents in Civil Rule 420 of 1966 against the Judgment and order dated 30th July, 1968 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, allowing the Writ petition with numberorder as to companyts.
K. Nandy and Krishna Prosad for the Appellants.
After the war was over, the area on which the air field had been companystructed viz.
