Constitution of India

— Art. 226 — Interference in other matters — Police protection — Issuance of mandamus for — When warranted — Appellant Company before BIFR seeking to sell a portion of its vast land holding so as to revive itself — Such revival scheme approved by BIFR and State Government — Company employing a large number of workers (six thousand) — Company seeking police protection to protect the property from trespassers and for repairing compound wall of property and for putting up separate boundary wall protecting portion to be alienated — Single Judge granting mandatory injunction sought for police protection — However, R-1 to R-3, claiming to be assignee landlords of a certain part of the property obtaining stay of said injunction by impugned order of Division Bench — Sustainability — Held, in purported exercise of their fractional right in reversion R-1 to R-3 had no right to interfere with possession of the property so long as the thika tenancy of Company continues — It is the duty of the police of the State to give necessary protection for protecting property from interference by lawless elements and unauthorised persons, so as to ensure revival of a sinking industry and welfare of its workers, creditors and management — Mandatory injunction of Single Judge restored, (2006) 5 SCC 539-A

Police

Police Protection

— Charging of expenses for — When warranted — Scale of charges — Appellant Company seeking necessary police protection for protecting its property from interference by lawless elements and unauthorised persons, so as to ensure success of scheme for its revival and the welfare of its workers (about 6000), creditors and management — Charging of expenses for — Tenability — Held, in light of police regulations applicable, protection in such circumstances should be afforded without charging for expenses — However, since Company had approached Court expressing its readiness to meet the charges, it would not be appropriate to waive its obligation to pay the charges — However, only a reasonable amount should be fixed so that the burden of payment of police charges does not render the revival scheme nugatory — Hence, though Company had agreed to pay Rs 16,413 per day for protection, Rs 10,000 per day fixed as charges for entire period for which charges had not been paid and until the revival scheme was successfully completed, (2006) 5 SCC 539-B

Tenancy and Land Laws

Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 (2 of 1949)

— Ss. 2 and 3 — Rights of thika tenant — Assignees of fractional title in the property from co-owner landlord seeking to interfere with possession of thika tenant, on thika tenant seeking to alienate part of the property — Permissibility — Held, so long as the thika tenancy in the property continues, said assignees have no right to interfere with possession of the property — Being assignees of undivided shares from a co-owner, prima facie, their right, if any, is to sue for partition — Further attempt to claim that the thika tenancy was determined by Ss. 5 & 6 of 1981 Acquisition Act was self-destructive as rights of the landlord would also stand vested in the State — In any case the State had made no claim under the 1981 Act, (2006) 5 SCC 539-C