HC raps govt for forcible possession of firm

Vijay Arora

Shimla, May 29

The High Court has imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the state government for taking the possession of the company ‘Saber Paper Limited’, Una, without following the due course of law.

Justice Sanjay Karol observed: “Taking the forcible possession without following the due process of law is nothing, but destruction of the basic principle of rules of law and an autocratic act of the state.”

The court passed the judgment last week on a petition filed by the company alleging that the Una district administration had taken over the possession of the property of the company forcibly and without following the rule of law.

As per the fact of the case, the company had purchased land in the name of one of its employees and then established its industrial unit in Una district by violating the provisions of the Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, vide which no outsider can purchase land in the state without the permission of the government.

The Una Deputy Commissioner has ordered vesting of the land with the state. The petitioner company had challenged the order of the DC before the Divisional Commissioner and stay was granted by the appellate authority. But despite the stay order, the district authorities had taken the possession of the property of the company forcibly with the assistance of the police on January 19, 2016. Against the action of the authorities, the petitioner had filed the petition before the court.

While directing the state to restore the possession of the property to the petitioner, Justice Karol observed: “The Constitution does not countenance such an eventuality. Action of the state is nothing, but an act of highhandedness. It has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.”

The court ruled: “The action actually smacks of undue haste, arbitrariness and disregard for the judicial process. What prompted the state to suddenly take over the possession and that too with the help of the police remains unexplained on record.”

It further said: “Respondents ought to have maintained judicial discipline and shown regard to an authority discharging judicial functions rather than resorting to such illegality. The District Magistrate cannot act as a gun-trotting cowboy in a wild west. Right to property is a constitutional right and none can be deprived of the same, more so by the state. The process has to be followed. The action of the state being illegal, without authority of law, opposed to the cardinal principle and constitutional guarantees, needs to be set aside and the property restored to the petitioner till and so long the appeal is heard and decided on merit.”