Case title:
Mr. Shafeeq Ahmed, Advocate vs Union of India through Defense Secretary, New Delhi, India, and Ors.
Date of Order:
7/6/2023
Bench:
Amit Sharma
Parties:
Plaintiff - Mr. Shafeeq Ahmed
Defendant- Union of India
SUBJECT
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is an Indian law aimed at maintaining public order in areas declared "disturbed" by the government. The act was first enacted in 1958 to control the Naga insurgency in Northeast India and has been amended several times since then. The Act grants special powers to the armed forces including the ability to arrest without a warrant, the use of force, and the power to enter and search any premises. The Act also protects armed forces personnel from prosecution for actions taken under the Act.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958
- Section 4
- Section 7
Code of Civil Procedure
- Order 7, Rule 11
OVERVIEW
- On 02/01/2008 the defendant obtained the property of the plaintiff on a rent basis and executed the documents of handing over and taking over possession.
- A total of 85 trees were present on the land at the time when the possession was handed over to the defendant.
- Eventually, against the spirit of the agreement, 64 trees were cut down by the defendants.
- The present petition was filed by the plaintiff to seek compensation for the same.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the plaintiff's suit merits rejection under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as there is no sanction under the Armed Forces Protection Act?
- Whether the plaintiff's suit merits rejection as the plaintiff has no cause of action?
- Whether the suit merits rejection as no duplicate copy of the suit nor affidavit is filed by the plaintiff?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PLAINTIFF
- The counsel for plaintiffs argued that the plaint was only regarding compensation for the 64 trees cut down by the defendants.
- It was contended by the counsel that the nature of the present dispute is nothing related to section 4 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958.
- The counsel submitted to the court that the present suit is neither hit for want of sanction nor for cause of action.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE DEFENDANT
- The counsel argued that the present suit was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 7 of the Armed Forces Special Protection Act.
- The provision mandates that no proceedings shall be instituted except with the central government's sanction.
- The counsel contended that the plaintiff failed to obtain proper sanction from the central government to file this suit against the army authorities.
- Reliance was placed on the case of Naga People's Movement of Human Rights Vs Union of India [AIR 1998 SC 431] to support his arguments.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The first and second issues raised in this case were decided in favor of the plaintiff by the court, whereas the decision on issue 3 is deferred and to be decided at the final stage.
- The court held that the action of the army authorities to cut down the trees without the permission of the landowners was the cause of action that led the plaintiff to file the present suit.
- The court observed that the position of the defendant in the present case is nothing more than a tenant, which denies them any authority to make improvements or cut down any tree existing on the land.
- It was ruled that the present dispute does not fall under the ambit of Section 4 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. And hence there is no need to obtain sanction before the filing of suits in these kinds of controversies.
CONCLUSION
Section 4 of The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, provides special powers to the armed forces in a disturbed area. Under this section, the armed forces have the power to arrest without a warrant and to use force, even to the extent of causing death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area. In the matter at hand, the Court of Principal District Judge, Bandipora looked into the validity of a suit filed under Section 4 of the Act and whether sanctions must be acquired from the Central government for such a suit to be maintainable. It was ruled that for suits concerning disputes that are not covered under any of the clauses of section 4, obtaining sanctions is not required.
