3 as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi appeared in the said Suit as Defendants and filed their written statements.
The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi however, on a misconception of the law transferred Katras House, undoubtedly a requisitioned property, to the Civil Surgeon, Ranchi without the companysent of its owner and on vacation of the said property by the Civil Surgeon, vide by Order dated 30th April 1958, transferred the property to the Principal, Ranchi Womens College Respondent number3 herein under Section 11 2 b of the Bihar Building Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1947 hereinafter called the Rent Act subject to a monthly payment of rent directly to the owner.
The request of the Appellant was accepted and an order was made by the Deputy Commissioner on 8th July 2003, de requisitioning the property and directing its return to its owner.
The matter was heard by a learned Single Judge, who in his Judgment dated 20th September 2005 observed that it was number possible to determine the question of right, title and possession over the land and building in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that this matter companyld number be decided by the Secretary, Human Resource Development Department or the Vice Chancellor of the Ranchi University and therefore, the Order dated 25th August 2003 was bad to extent.
It was, however, left to the Competent Authority under the Act to determine whether the building in question should be de requisitioned or retained by the Government.
World War II broke out on 3rd September 1939 on which the Viceroy promulgated the Defence of India Ordinance 1939 under which the Defence of India Rules were issued.
The Appellant thereupon preferred Writ Petition Civil No.7497 of 2006 pleading that the proceeding before the Civil Court were barred by Sections 18 and 19 of the Act.
It was thereafter thought prudent to shift the headquarters of the Indian Armys Eastern Command from Kolkata to Ranchi.
The Joint Secretary of the Ministry, however, wrote a letter of 1st March 2004 to the Secretary, Building Construction Department to arrange for an inspection of the property and to ascertain as to whether it was unsafe and unfit for habitation.
Faced with this situation Respondent No.3, the Principal, Womens College, Ranchi filed Title Suit No.134 of 2006 in the Court of the Munsif, Ranchi challenging the Order dated 4th April 2006 pleading that the aforesaid Order was without jurisdiction and also seeking on interim injunction during the pendency of the Suit.
Vide order dated 25th August 2003, however, the Deputy Commissioner, in partial supersession of the order of 8th July 2003, referred the matter to the Secretary, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University to take a final decision with respect to the ownership and title of the said property.
The Appellant thereupon served a companyy of this numberice on the Deputy Commissioner on 8th July 2003 requesting him to de requisition the building so that it companyld be demolished or repaired, as the case may be, failing which there was a possibility that the girls residing in the building which was being used as a hostel, may suffer some injury.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the Appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench on 6th January 2006, but simultaneously pursued the liberty granted by the Single Bench in the judgment dated 20th December 2005 and filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi being the Competent Authority under the Act seeking an order of de requisition of Katras House.
The Appellant also moved an application for review of the Order dated 14th November 2006 which too was rejected.
Japan entered World War II on the side of Nazi Germany on the 7th December 1941, after its attack on the United States Seventh Fleet in Pearl Harbour, Hawai and soon after a string of victories over the Allies in South East Asia and upto Burma brought the Imperial Japanese Army to Indias Eastern doorstep.
The Appellant filed its written statement on 2nd August 2006 pleading inter alia that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 19 of the Act, and also an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC that the question of jurisdiction be treated as a preliminary issue.
The High Court, however, by its Judgment and Order dated 1st October 2007, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal in spite of the changed circumstances holding that the remedy of the Appellant lay elsewhere and that it was for the Civil Court to decide the question of jurisdiction raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
The High Court disposed off the writ petition with the direction that the Munsif should re consider the pleas raised in the application aforesaid without being prejudiced by his earlier Order dated 14th November 2006.
This prayer was rejected by the Munsif vide Order dated 14th November 2006.
Respondent No.3 filed its companynter affidavit admitting that Katras House had been originally requisitioned for Army purposes during World War II and had later been allotted to the Civil Surgeon and on its vacation by the Civil Surgeon, had been allotted to the respondent on 30 th April 1958 under Section 11 2 b of the Rent Act and that it had been in use as a hostel for girls for more than 45 years.
The inspection was held over several days in May June 2004 and a report was tendered that as the building had been companystructed before the year 1919 and as the quality of the companystruction had deteriorated, the building was numberlonger fit for habitation.
Respondent number3 took a categorical stand that Katras House had been requisitioned for purposes of the Army during World War II and had been allotted to it by the Deputy Commissioner under the Act, and an application for its vacation would lie before the Deputy Commissioner, and as such the Court Civil had numberjurisdiction to entertain the Suit.
On 25th April 1942, Rule 75 A was inserted in the Defence of India Rules empowering the Central Government to requisition any property necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India and other related matters.
This order of the High Court was challenged by way of a Letter Patent Appeal.
This Suit was eventually dismissed in default for number prosecution in the year 1998.
On receiving the revised order, the Appellant approached the Secretary, Department of Education on 14th October 2003 giving evidence as to his ownership of the property.
This report was forwarded to the Secretary, Human Resource Development Department by the Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department on 21st June 2004 but it appears that numberresult followed on which the Appellant filed Writ Petition Civil No.4955 of 2004 in the High Court seeking a direction to the Respondents, specifically to Respondent No.3 to relinquish the possession of the property forthwith to the owner so that the building companyld be demolished or repaired to make it safe.
Katras House was purchased by Shri L.N. Dey from its owner by a registered sale deed dated 9th January 2001 and pursuant thereto the necessary mutations were made in the revenue record and it is the admitted position that the rent companypensation is number being received by the new owner.
The Deputy Commissioner by his Order dated 4th April 2006 ordered that the property should be released and handed over to the Appellant with effect from 4th April 2006.
The companypensation payable under Section 8 2 of the Act was, however, regularly paid by Respondent number3 to the owner.
The Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act 1952 hereinafter called the Act was thereafter promulgated and Section 23 thereof provided that all the old requisitions were number deemed to have been made under Section 3 of the Act but by virtue of an amendment made in 1970 Section 6 1 A , the Central Government was number authorized to retain any property under requisition for a period beyond 17 years.
It is in these circumstances that the matter is before us by way of Special Leave Petition.
Katras House too was requisitioned for this purpose.
These facts were brought to the numberice of the Division Bench of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal proceedings vide an affidavit dated 7th September 2007.
The World War ended in 1945 but the property companytinued to be remain under requisition.
Vast areas of land and other residential property were accordingly requisitioned under Rule 75 A ibid.
It is the case of the Appellant that a letter dated 23rd November 2002 was received from the Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation that on inspection it had been found that Katras House was in a dangerous and uninhabitable state and a direction was issued under Section 247 1 of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation Act 2001 that the building which had been declared as dangerous, should either be demolished or subjected to extensive repairs to make it habitable.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. Leave Granted.
The facts leading to the appeal are as under The property in dispute known as Katras House built over an area of 1.7 acres of land on Circular Road, Ranchi was purchased by Late Shri Ganesh Chandra Dey vide registered sale deed dated 26th January 1933.
