http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.J. THANAWALLA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (2)909

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made on July 29, 1991 in  Writ Petition  No.2333/83. The admitted position is that one  Hanumanbux had  been running salt works at Bombay. It had  established salt  factory at  Bhandup Circle on land admeasuring 138  acres 17  gunthas and  seabed etc.  on  the basis of  a lease which was due for renewal on July 1, 1983. When a  notice was issued by the appellants on June 30, 1983 calling upon the licensees to execute a lease deed admitting the title of the appellants, they resisted the action in the above writ  petition. The  High Court  in the impugned order stated that  whether  the  respondents  are  owners  of  the property  or   a  lessees   and  consequently   whether  the Government can  compel the  licensees to  concede  to  their title are  jurisdictional issues.  Since the  Collector  had already decided  that  the  respondents  had  title  to  the property, which is a condition for grant of a valid licence, it was  for the  Government to  consider the  renewal of the licensees provided  all the requisite conditions for renewal of the  licence were complied with. We are informed that the appeal has  already been  filed against  the  order  of  the Collector and  is pending.  It is for the Government to have the matter disposed of.      It is  not in  dispute that for grant of renewal, title to the  property or  title under  a  lease  is  a  condition precedent. The Government asserted its title to the property and called  upon the  respondents to  accept their title and have a  licence issued  from them.  On the  other hand,  the respondents asserted  to have  title  to  the  property  and claimed that  they had a right under the order passed by the Collector which  is subject  matter in  the appeal. The High Court, therefore,  rightly has not gone into the question of title and  relegated the  parties to  the  decision  of  the appellate  Tribunal   and  to  take  action  in  furtherance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

thereof. The view taken by the High Court, therefore, cannot be said to be unjustified on the facts of the case. However, it will  be subject  to the  result in  the appeal  and  the action of  the appellants  would be  in furtherance thereof. Until then, the interim order passed by the High Court would continue. It  would be  open to  the appellants  to have the appeal disposed of as expeditiously as possible and have the matter decided accordingly.      The appeal is dismissed. No costs.