MUNSm RAM & Ors. v. DELffi ADMINISTRATION

The first question that arises for decision in this case is as to who was in possession of the field in dispute on the date of the occurrence, i.e., ori July 1, 1962. For deciding that 'que.stion it is necessary to find out as to who was in possession of the same prior to June 22. 1962, the date" on which that field was sai<! to have been delivered to PW 17. On this question, the prosecution is silent. DW 3, Jamuna, in his evidence deposed that he had been in posse.ssion of that field as a tenant for over thirty years. His case was that he was formerly the tenant in respect of that field under some Muslim landlords and after their migration to Pakis tan, under the officer managing the evacuee property. This evi dence of his was not challenged in cross.examination. That evi dence is supported by the prosecution exh. PT. Tho courts below have also proceeded on the! basis that Jamuna was in possession of the field till June 22, 1 962. Therefore, we have to see whether there was any lawful delivery of th~t field on June 22, 1962. At this stage it is necessary to recapitulate that the field in question had been sold by the managing officer on January 2, 1961. Its provisional delivery was given on October 12, 1961. The sale certificate was issued on 8-2-62 ( exh. PF). Therefore, the gov ernment had no interest in that field on or after the aforementioned sale. It is not the case of the prosecution that Jamuna's tenarJly had been terminated by any of the authorities constituted under (0 AIR 1927 Mad. 97. B c D E F G H MUNSHI RAM v. DELHI ADM. (Hegde, J.) 459 A B the Displacl!d Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 19 54 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). It may further be noted that the exh. PM-the terms and conditions under which the auction of the field was held--does not show that the govern ment had undertaken to deliver physical possession of that field to the purchaser. From the facts stated above it is obvious that Jamuna continued to be the tenant in the land even after the sale in favour of PW 17. The prosecution case is that delivery of that field was given to PW 17 by PW 10 the kanungo on June 22, 1962 as per the deli very warrant issued by PW 5, the managing officer. Even accord ing to the prosecution version, _at the time of that delivery J amuna ~ was not present. There is also no evidence to show that J amuna was aware of the alleged delivery. It is true that as a token of tbc delivery, some ploughing was done at the time of the alleged delivery. At this stage it is also necessary to mention that at the time of the alleged delivery, crops grown by Jamuna were there It was said that the kanungo who deli- in a portion of the field. D vc; ed the field, vplued the crops in question at Rs. 60 and the same was deposit~ by PW 17 with PW 5 as per the orders of the latter for being paid over to Jamuna. We were not told under what authority those steps were taken. This takes us to the question whether the purported delivery is valid in law. Normally before a tenant can be evicted from his holding. his tenancy must be terminated and the eviction should be done through a court of competent jurisdiction. No landlord has any right to throw out· his tenant from his holding. The law on the subject was explained by this Court in Lal/u Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh and others('). Therefore, it is clear that PW 1 7 who had become the owner of the land long before June 22, 1962 could not have evicted Jamuna from the land in the manner alleged. E F The next question is whether PW 5, the managing officer was competent to evict Jamuna. We fail to see how he could have done it. He had no interest in the land in question on June 22, 1962. The right, title and interest of the government in the land G had long been alienated. The managing officer had already given to the vendee such possession a5 he could have, namely, the land lord's possession. Thereafter it went out of the compensation pool and the managing officer had no power to deal with it unless otherwise expressly provided. Our attention has not been invited to any provision in the Act authorising the managing officer to deal with a property which had ceased to be an evacuee property. H · Therefore we fail to see how PW 5 could have issued any warrant for the delivery of the field in question on June 22, 1962. en [196SJ 2 s.c.R. 20J. 460 Sl.'PRLME ('OURT REPORTS (1968] 2 S.CR Before the courts below it was pleaded on behalf of the prose cution-which plea commended itself to those courts--that delivery in question was effected under s. 19 of the Act. section 19. 10 the extent it is material for our present purpose, reads thus : .. I I l Notwithslanding anything contained in any con lract or any other law for time ·being in force but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act. the managing officer or manag ing corporation may cancel any allotment or tenninate any lease or amend the terms of any lease or allotment under which any evacuee pro perty acquired under this Act is held or occupi ed by a per>on, whether such allotment or le<•s.: was granted before or after the commcme ment of this Act. I 2) Where any person-( a) has ceased to be eniitkd to the possc"ion of any evacuee property by reason of a~y action taken under sub:section (I ) , or ( h l is otherwise in unauthorised po~se.s­ sion of any evacuel! property or any other im movable property forming part of the compen sation pool: he shall, after he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause again>t his eviction from such property, surrender p<l'> scssion of the property on demand being made in 1his behalf by the managing officer or manag ing corporation or by any other person duly authorised by such officer or corporation. ( 3) If any person fails to surrender possession or any property on demand made under sub-section the managing officer or managing cor ( 2) poration may, notwithstanding anything to the: contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. eject such person and take posses sion of such property and may, for such purpose, use or cause to be used such force as rllay b<! necessary." A B c D E F G The above provisions apply only to.properties which are. under the control of the managing officers or managing corpomtions. · They do not apply to properties which have ceased to be evacuee properties. Further, it is not the prosecution case that any action unller sub-ss. I and 2 of s. 19 had ever been taken against Jamunn. H If that was so; ao action under sub-s. 3 of s. 19 could have been taken. As a condition pte<;edent for taking action under sub-s. 3 of s. I 9 it was necessary to take the steps prescribed hy 'ub-s. 2 A c D E F G H MUNSHI RAM v. DELHI ADM. (Hegde, J.) 461 It must be noted that the power conferred under sub-s. of s. 19. 3 is a special power conferred for a special purpose. Such a power has to be exercised strictly in accordance with the condi If it is not so exercised, the exercise of the tions prescribed. power would be vitiated. Having not taken any action under sub-s. 2 of s. 19, the managing officer was incompetent to issue any warrant for delivery under sub-s. 3 of s. 19 under which he It was for the vendee to take the necessary is said to have acted. steps under law for taking possession from Jamuna. Therefore, In the it is obvious that the alleged delivery has no legal force. eye of the law it is non-est. Hence Jamuna continued to be in possession of the field in question even after the so-called delivery ori: June 22, 1962. This aspect of the case was completely lost sight of by the courts below. It is seen from the evidence of DW 3, Jamuna, which evidence was not even challenged in cross-examination, that PWs 17 and 19 were aware of the fact that the purported delivery on June 22, 1962 was merely a paper delivery. In his chief-examination, DW 3, Jamuna, deposed thus : "A day prior to the occurrence, R. P. Dutta and his spn Ashwani Kumar had met me and had asked me to get the compromise effected. I told him that since I was proceeding out station in connection with some marriage, any talk of compromise could take place after my return from there. Both R. P. Dutta and his son Ashwani Kumar had threatened me that in case I would not deliver possession of the land in question will ingly, they would get -possession of the same by force under the pressure of the police. All the accused are near relations of mine." To repeat, this evidence was not challenged in cross-examination. From that evidence it is clear that at about the time of occurrence PWs 17 and 19 were conscious of the fact that Jamuna still con tinued to be in possession of the field. PWs 17 and 19 were aware of the fact that Jamuna was un willing to deliver possession of the field. This is borne out by the fact that at the time of the alleged delivery on June 22, 1962, police assistance was applied for and obtained. From the foregoing it is clear that Jamuna was in effective possession of the field on the date of the occurrence. But it was urged on behalf of the prosecution that right)y or wrongly PW 17 had taken possession of the property on June 22, 1962, and therefore, if Jamuna had any grievances, he should have agitated L!Sup(CI)/68-15 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1968J.2 S.C.R. the same in a court of law, and that his relations had no right to take law into their own hands. This contention is based on a If by the alleged delivery PW 17 misconception of the law. could not be held to have been put in possession of the field. he could not be said to have been in possession of the same. The fact that some fonnalities were gone through in pursuance of an unauthorised order issued by PW 5 is no ground for holding that po&session of the field had passed into the hands of PW 17. Steps taken by PW 17 and others wh.o accompanied him on June It is true that no one includ 22, 1962 were unauthorised acts. ing the true owner has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespa~ser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But stray or even intennittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be a settled ~ession extending over a sufficiently loni_period and acquiesced m by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possessiou_-Of the.. "rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he than necessary. Such entry will be does not use more force view.ed only as a resistance to an intrusion up(>n possession which has never been lost. The persons in possession by a stray act of trespass, a ~<ession which has not matured into settled posses sion, constitute an unlawful assembly, giving right to the true owner, though not in actual possession at the time, to remove the obstruction even by using necessary force. A 8 c D E I 962 lt is not the case of the prosecution that between June 22 and July I, 1962 the complainant or his men had been to the field in question. We have earlier seen that PWs 17 and 19 had un successfully tried to intimidate Jamuna on June 30, It is only thereafter on deliver peaceful possession o( the field. July I, I 962, they along with their friends went to the field with a tractor, and at that time PW I 9 was anned with a. pistol for It was at that stage, the appellants who which he had no licence. are close relations of Jamuna came to the field, some anned with sticks and others with spears. They first asked the complainant's party to clear out of the field, but when they refused, they pushed them and thereafter attacked them as a result of which PW 17. PW 19 and the tractor driver Acharya were injured (see .evidence of PW 19, R. P. Dutt). The iniuries caused by them were held to be simple injuries. From the proved facts, it is evident that PWs 17 and 19 had gone to the field with their friends, PW 19 being anned with a G H MUNSHI RAM v. DELHI ADM. (Hegde, J.) 463 A deadly weapon, with a view to intimidate Jamuna and to assert their possession. Therefore they were clearly guilty of criminal trespass. They also constituted an unlawful as~embly. The law relating to defence of property is set out in s. 97 IPC, which says that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in s. 99, to defend-First-his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; Secondly.-the property, whether movable or inunovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mis chief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trt<spass. Section 99 of the Code lays down that. there is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public autho- rities. It further lays down that the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. It was urged on behalf of the prosecution that even assuming that J amuna was in possession of the field in view of the delivery that had taken place on June. 22, 1962,. he and his relations had enough time to have recourse to the protection of the· public authorities. and therefore the appellants could not claim the right of private defence. The case of Jamuna and the appellants was that they were unaware of the alleged delivery on June 22, 1962. Admittedly neither Jamuna nor any of the appellants were present at the time of that delivery. Nor is there any evidence on record to show that they were aware of the same. Further, as seen eadier, the conversation that PWs 17 and 19 had with Janmna on the day prior to the occurrence, proceeded on the basis that Jamuna was still in possession of the field. Under these circum- stances when the complainant party invaded the field on July l, 1962, Jamuna's relations must have been naturally taken by sur prise. Law does not ·require a person whose property is forcibly tried to be occupied by trespassers to run away and seek the pro tection of the authorities. The right of private defence serves a social purpose and that right should be liberally construed. Such a right not only will be a restraining influence on bad characters but it will encourage the right spirit in a free citizen. There is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in the face of peril. In Jai Dev v. State of Punjab('), this Court while dealing with the right of defence of property and person observ, ed (at p. 500) "In appreciating the validity of the appellants' argu- ment, it would be necessary to recall the basic assump- B c D ' G H (1J"[l963J ) s.c.R. 489. 464 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [1968] 2 S.C.R. tions u,nderlylllg tile law of self-defence. · In a well •miered civilised society it is generally assumed that the State would take care of the persons and properties" of individual citizens ,and that nonnally it is the function of the State to afford p,rotection to such persons and their properties. This, howevct, does not mean that a person suddenly called upon to .face an assault must run away and thus protect himself. He is entitled to resist the attack and defend himself. The same is the position if he has to meet an attack on his property. In other words, where an individual citizen or his property is faced with a danger and immediate· aid from the State machinery is not readily available, the individual citi zen is entitled to protect himself and his property. That being so, it is a necessary corollary to the doctrine of 'private defence that the violence which the citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury which is to be averted or which is reasonably apprehended and should not exceed its legitimate purpose. The exercise of the right of private. defence must never be vindictive or malicious." In Haram and others v. Rex('), a division bench of the Alla habad High Court observed that where a trespasser enters upon the land 'of another, th~ person in whom the rightful possession is vested, while the trespasser is in the pi; ocess of acquiring posses sion, may tum the trespasser out of the land by force and if in doing so, he inflicts such injuries on the trespasser as are wiirrant ed by the situation, he commits no offence. His action would be covered by the principle of private defence embodied in ss. 96 to 105 .IPC: Similar was the view taken by a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court in Sangappa and Ors. v. State(•), Therein it was held that if some body enters on the land of a person who doe's not acquiesce in the trespass he would stilt retain possession of the land and as the possessor of the land, is entitled If lie brings friends with him and witJ:t force to that possession. of arms resists those who are trespassing on the land, who are also armed, he and his friends would not be guilty or forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, for those who defend their possession are not members of an unlawful assembly. If the per son acquiesces in his dispo, ssession and subequently, under claim of title comes again to dispossess his opponents, then he and ·his friends would be members of an unlawful a5sembly. That is also the view taken by the Madras Hi~ Court in re. Mooka Nadlir(8 ). We are in agreement with the ratio of those decisions. (I) 50 Cr. L.J. 868. (2) I.L.R. [1955) Hyderabad 406. (3) A.T.R. ~943 Mad. 590. B c F G H MUNSHI RAM v. DELHI ADM. (Hegde, J.) 465 A On the basis of the proved facts it cannot be said that the appellants had exceeded their right cif private defence. In the result, this appeal is allowed, _the conviction of th~ appellants is set aside and they are acquitted. 8 R.K.P.S. A{Jpeal a/lmvt'd.