HARISH CHANDRA NIGAM versus STATE OF U.P.

On derequisition, property should technically be released in favour of the person from whom possession was taken at requisition, as per correct interpretation of sections 29 and 35(1) of the Defence of India Act, unless facts subsequent to requisition require otherwise.

Parties: Appellant: Harish Chandra Nigam; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 21 January 1980
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court
Outcome: C.A. 559/70 partly allowed; C.A. 560/70 dismissed.
Legal Topics: Requisition and Release of Immovable Property, Defence of India Act Procedures

Administrative Law Property Law Requisition and Release of Immovable Property Defence of India Act Procedures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Harish Chandra Nigam

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether property requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1962 should be released to the person from whom possession was originally taken, regardless of provisional allotment status.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

C.A. 559/70 partly allowed; C.A. 560/70 dismissed.

Orders

Possession of plot no. 60 to be delivered to Nigam within six months unless the Government takes legal steps to recover it; possession may be recovered by the Government even later.
C.A. 560/70 dismissed as plot was allotted to Mrs. B.K. Anand; no direction to dispossess her.