advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Sec.2 , 3 of Grants Act - Cantonment board - resumption of land - wrongly claimed that the grant is free from holds - mere entry in GLR survey never confirm title - suits for recovery of resumed property - Apex court held that The plaintiffs-respondents have only right with regard to the structure built on the suit premises. The Union of India-appellants have a right for resumption of the suit premises, as evident from evidence on record as discussed above. This issue was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court and the High Court which also failed to notice the appellants’ right under Section 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895.- we set aside the impugned judgment dated 25th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.272 of 2009, the judgment dated 15th January, 2009 passed by the First Appellate Court and judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2005 passed by the Trial Court. Civil Suit No.695/1999 on the file of Small Causes Court, Pune is dismissed.= UNION OF INDIA & ANR. … APPELLANTS VERSUS DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41515

Sec.2 , 3 of Grants Act - Cantonment board - resumption of land - wrongly claimed that the grant is free from holds - mere entry in GLR survey never confirm title - suits for recovery of resumed property - Apex court held that  The plaintiffs-respondents have  only  right  with  regard  to  the structure built on the suit premises.  The Union of India-appellants have  a right for resumption of the suit  premises,  as  evident  from  evidence  on record as discussed above. This issue was not properly  appreciated  by  the Trial Court, the Appellate Court and the High Court  which  also  failed  to notice the appellants’ right under Section 2 and 3 of the Government  Grants
Act, 1895.-  we  set  aside  the  impugned  judgment dated 25th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature  at  Bombay in Civil Revision Application  No.272  of  2009,  the  judgment  dated  15th January, 2009 passed by the First Appellate Court and  judgment  and  decree dated 9th June, 2005 passed by the Trial Court. Civil  Suit  No.695/1999  on the file of Small Causes Court, Pune is dismissed.=


The dispute relates to the piece of  property  bearing  GLR  Survey
No. 258, admeasuring 0.90 acres which comprise of superstructure  consisting
of main bungalow, servant quarter and garage situated at  Elphinstone  Road,
Pune Cantonment, Pune (hereinafter referred as the “suit premises”).=

According  to  appellants,   as  per  terms  of  old  grant,   the
appellants decided to  resume  the  said  property  and,  therefore,  issued
notice    from    its    Ministry    of    Defence    being    Notice    No.
701/27/L/L&C/71/3606/D(Lands)  dated  11th   June,   1971   to   plaintiffs-
respondents intimating the intention to resume the suit  premises  and  also
informed   that  the  appellants   are  ready  to  pay  a  compensation   of
Rs.31,537/- as the value of the  authorized erection made on the said  land.
 The plaintiffs-respondents  were  informed  that  in  case  the  amount  of
compensation  offered  is  not  acceptable  to  them,   the   committee   of
Arbitration will be convened to assess the value of the authorized  erection
on the land.   The  cheque  for  the  said  amount  was  attached  with  the
aforesaid notice.  The symbolic possession of the bungalow in  question  was
taken on 12th July, 1971.=

      Thereafter, Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria purchaser of  the  bungalow
no.1A, Elphinstone  Road,  Poona  Cantonment  signed  admission  certificate
dated 19th April, 1971 with following conditions:
                           “Admission Certificate


   We, the undersigned,  Shri  Dinashaw  S.  Anklesaria  residing  at  94-A
   Mahatma Gandhi Road, Poona Cantonment, the purchaser of Bungalow  No.1A,
   Elphinstone  Road  General  Land  Register  Survey   No.258   of   Poona
   Cantonment, Sub District and Taluka Haveli, District  Poona,  do  hereby
   subscribe to the conditions (reproduced below)  of  the  original  grant
   pertaining to the site thereof and this agreement shall be binding on me
   as well as my heirs, successors and assigns as the case may  be  whoever
   shall be in possession of the said property.


                                 Conditions


1. Permission  to  occupy  ground  in  a  Military  Cantonment  confers  no
   proprietary  right;  it  continuous  the  property  of  the  Estate  and
   presumable at the pleasure of Government, but in  all  practicable  case
   one month’s notice of resumption will be given  and  the  value  of  all
   buildings which may have been authorized to be erected thereon, as shown
   in the accompanying plan, as estimated by the Committee contemplated  in
   General Order-Separate of 1856, will be paid to the owner.


2. That no buildings are to be erected on the ground other than  those  now
   existing and shown on the attached plan no additions or alternations are
   to be made thereto without the permission of the Officer Commanding  the
   Station.


3. The ground, being the property of  Government  cannot  be  sold  by  the
   grantee.  The buildings may be sold by  house  owners  of  the  previous
   permission of the Officer Commanding the Station.


4. That the Military Authorities have the power to cancel the grant if  the
   ground is used for any purpose other than for which  it  was  originally
   granted.


5. We also agree to abide by any  orders  and  rules  that  may  be  passed
   regarding tenure of land in cantonments.


   Place:        Poona
   Dated:        April 1971


                                               Signature of the purchaser of
                                           Bungalow No.1-A, Elphinstone Road
                                                Sy. No.258 Poona Cantonment.


   The above conditions have been explained  by  me  to  the  purchaser  of
   Bungalow No.1-A  Elphinstone  Road,  Poona  Cantonment,  and  have  been
   subscribed to by him in my presence.


   Place:        Poona
   Dated:        19th April, 1971
                                                    Military Estates Officer
                                                                Poona Circle
                                                             (K.C. Agarwal)”

35.      From the aforesaid records, it is clear that  the  land   measuring
0.90  acres  bearing  General  Land  Register  Survey  No.258  situated   at
Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona belongs  to  the  appellant.   The
said land was leased by way of  grant  originally  to   Nusserwanji  Sorabji
Anklesaria under conditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January,  1827.   The  super
structure including bungalow, garage and servant quarter  on  the  plot  was
constructed by him.  In the year 1891, the  super  structure  bequeathed  to
his son-Maneckhji Nusserwanji.  Maneckhji  Nusserwanji  Anklesaria  and  two
others sold their right, title and interest over the  super  structure  i.e.
bungalow no.1A in favour of  Dinshaw  Shapurji  Anklesaria  and  two  others
(nephews of Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria).  Thereby file  of  the  super
structure was transferred in favour of Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria  and  two
others but the title of the land remained with the appellant.
36.      This is also evident from General Land Register- Cantonment  8-A(1)
dated 7th March, 2007 =

 The plaintiffs-respondents also misled the Court  by  stating  that
the resumption notice dated 11th June, 1971 was  set  aside  by  the  Bombay
High Court and the said order has attained finality.
49.      In fact the judgment aforesaid on challenge before  this  Court  in
Civil Appeal No.613 of 1980, heard along with other appeals, this  Court  by
order dated 4th August, 1998 made the following observation:
                                   “Order
    Learned Solicitor General states that the Union  of  India  would  seek
    dispossession of the respondent-occupants from the properties  involved
    in accordance with law and if need be, through a Civil Court by  filing
    suits.  In case such steps are taken, any observations made by the High
    Court which would stand to defeat the remedies sought would  not  stand
    in its way.  On such stance of the Union of  India,  Civil  Appeals  as
    also the special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.”

50.      The  liberty  given  to  the  Union  of  India  to  dispossess  the
plaintiffs-respondents from the suit property  clearly  indicates  that  the
decision of the Bombay High Court that the suit premises do  not  belong  to
the Union of India was not acceptable to this Court.
51.       The  aforesaid  misleading  pleading  made  by   the   plaintiffs-
respondents is without any evidence and the same  influenced  the  Court  in
coming to  a  wrong  conclusion  that  the  plaintiffs-respondents  are  the
landlords and defendants-appellants are the tenants of the suit premises.
52.      The Appellate Court also failed  to  appreciate  the  evidence  and
erred in affirming the Trial Court’s view  that  the  plaintiffs-respondents
are the landlords and defendants-appellants are the tenants.
53.      The land of the  suit  premises  belong  to  the  Union  of  India-
appellants herein.  Therefore, they cannot be held  to  be  tenants  of  the
suit premises comprising of an area of 0.90 acres  together  with  structure
consisting of main Bungalow, Servant Quarter and Garage.
54.      The plaintiffs-respondents have  only  right  with  regard  to  the
structure built on the suit premises.  The Union of India-appellants have  a
right for resumption of the suit  premises,  as  evident  from  evidence  on
record as discussed above. This issue was not properly  appreciated  by  the
Trial Court, the Appellate Court and the High Court  which  also  failed  to
notice the appellants’ right under Section 2 and 3 of the Government  Grants
Act, 1895.
55.      For the reasons aforesaid,  we  set  aside  the  impugned  judgment
dated 25th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature  at  Bombay
in Civil Revision Application  No.272  of  2009,  the  judgment  dated  15th
January, 2009 passed by the First Appellate Court and  judgment  and  decree
dated 9th June, 2005 passed by the Trial Court. Civil  Suit  No.695/1999  on
the file of Small Causes Court, Pune is dismissed.
56.      The appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs.


         
2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41515

B.S. CHAUHAN, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, KURIAN JOSEPH

                                                                 REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6194   OF 2013
                  (arising out of SLP (C) No.2933 of 2010)


UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                      … APPELLANTS

                                   VERSUS

DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI  & ORS.               … RESPONDENTS


                               J U D G M E N T


Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.


         This appeal is directed against the judgment dated  25th  November,
2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature  at  Bombay  in  Civil  Revision
Application No.272  of  2009.  By  the  impugned  judgment  the  High  Court
dismissed the Revision Application and  affirmed  the  judgment  and  decree
passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court.
2.       The dispute relates to the piece of  property  bearing  GLR  Survey
No. 258, admeasuring 0.90 acres which comprise of superstructure  consisting
of main bungalow, servant quarter and garage situated at  Elphinstone  Road,
Pune Cantonment, Pune (hereinafter referred as the “suit premises”).
3.       The case of the appellants is that the suit premises  as  aforesaid
belongs to the appellants – “Pune Cantonment Board”.  The   Governor-General
by its  order  No.14(G.G.O.-14)  dated  6th  January,  1827  intimated  that
officers  not provided with public quarters may receive permission to  erect
houses within fortress or military cantonment conferring on  them  right  of
property whatever in the ground allotted to them for  that  purpose,   which
will continue to be  the  property  of  the  State,  and  resumable  at  the
pleasure  of  the  Government.    The  plot  admeasuring  0.90  acres  (suit
premises) in question was  initially  granted  to  one  Nusserwanji  Sorabji
Anklesaria who erected superstructure, including the Bungalow  in  question.
 In the year 1891 he bequeathed the suit bungalow  no.1A,  Elphinstone  Road
to his  son  Maneckhji  Nusserwanji  Anklesaria.   The  name  of   Maneckhji
Nusserwanji was  registered  in  General  Land  Register.   Therein  it  was
mentioned that the bungalow in  question  is  held  under  old  grant  under
conditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January, 1827.
4.       An agreement for occupation by Government  of  the  property  in  a
cantonment not requisitioned under the Cantonment (House Accommodation)  Act
 known  as  “Repairing  Lease”  was  entered  between  Maneckji  Nasserwanji
Anklesaria in one part (First Part)  and the Governor General in Council  on
the  other  (Second  Part)  on  29th  August,  1941,   whereunder   property
described in Schedule I thereto i.e. Bungalow No. 1-A with servant  quarter,
garage, etc. was given in possession  to  the  second  part  (i.e.  Governor
General in Council) for a  consideration  of  monthly  payment  of  Rs.196/-
payable on the first of every month,  the first of such payment  being  made
on  the first day of  August,  1941.    As  per  the  said  agreement,   the
appellants were  required to maintain the premises  i.e.  Bungalow  No.  1-A
with servant quarter, garage etc..  It was agreed upon that  if  by   reason
of fire or tempest or other  cause  not  occurred  by  the  willful  act  or
default of the party on the second part,  the premises or any part or  parts
thereof or was in the opinion of the party on the second  part  is  rendered
uninhabitable at any time, the said  agreement  in  force,  then  until  the
premises or such part and parts thereof as are affected  shall  be  restored
or rendered fit for reoccupation to the satisfaction of  the  party  on  the
second part.
5.       Subsequently, by an Indenture of Sale  dated  12th  November,  1968
between  Manekji Nassurwanji  Anklesaria  and  two  others  and  plaintiffs-
respondents,  Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others it  was  agreed  to
sell and purchase the lease-hold rights being perpetual grant under the  old
grant of the Pune Cantonment  Board  over the suit  premises  including  the
bungalow,  servant quarters’ garage, etc.  with full rights of ownership  of
the building  for   total  consideration  of  Rs.  60,000/-.   In  the  said
“Indenture of Sale” it  was  narrated  that  necessary  permission  on  that
behalf had been received  from  the  authorities  concerned  by  letter  no.
201125/Q(PP)  dated  14th  June,  1968,   signed  by  the  General   Officer
Commanding in Chief, Head Quarter, Southern Command.
6.       The admission certificate with regard to suit premises  was  issued
by the  plaintiffs-respondents  on  19th  April,  1971  in  favour  of   the
Military Cantonment Estate Officer, Poona Circle, Pune.
7.        According  to  appellants,   as  per  terms  of  old  grant,   the
appellants decided to  resume  the  said  property  and,  therefore,  issued
notice    from    its    Ministry    of    Defence    being    Notice    No.
701/27/L/L&C/71/3606/D(Lands)  dated  11th   June,   1971   to   plaintiffs-
respondents intimating the intention to resume the suit  premises  and  also
informed   that  the  appellants   are  ready  to  pay  a  compensation   of
Rs.31,537/- as the value of the  authorized erection made on the said  land.
 The plaintiffs-respondents  were  informed  that  in  case  the  amount  of
compensation  offered  is  not  acceptable  to  them,   the   committee   of
Arbitration will be convened to assess the value of the authorized  erection
on the land.   The  cheque  for  the  said  amount  was  attached  with  the
aforesaid notice.  The symbolic possession of the bungalow in  question  was
taken on 12th July, 1971.
8.        After  about  two  years,  the  respondent  filed  Special   Civil
Application No. 1536/1973  challenging  the  resumption  notice  dated  11th
June, 1971.  Some other  individuals  who  erected  bungalows  on  similarly
situated lands which were also resumed, also  filed  similar  special  civil
applications including Special Civil Application No. 1286 of 1972, etc..
9.       By judgment and order dated 5th February,  1979,  the  Bombay  High
Court allowed the  Special  Civil  Application  No.1286/1972  being  Phiroze
Temulji Anklesaria Vs. H.C. Vashistha & Others,  AIR  1980  Bom  9  and  set
aside the notice of resumption.  The  High  Court  held  that  there  is  no
evidence whatsoever  of  the  Government’s  right  to  resume  the  land  in
possession and the terms under which  right  of  such  resumption,  if  any,
could be exercised.  It further held  that  most  importantly  there  is  no
evidence of the right or  power  of  Government  to  acquire  the  structure
standing on the land in question by arbitrarily or unilaterally  determining
compensation.
10.      Relying on the aforesaid judgment, writ petition preferred  by  the
plaintiffs-respondents in Special Civil Application  No.1536/1973  was  also
allowed by judgment dated 27th February, 1979.
11.      Being aggrieved  by  judgments  passed  in  various  special  civil
applications whereby the High Court set aside the  resumption  notices,  the
Union of India filed  SLP(C) Nos.498-511/1980 before this  Court.    Against
the judgment dated 27th February, 1979 passed in  the  case  of  plaintiffs-
respondents in SCA No.  1536/1973  the  defendants-appellants  filed  SLP(C)
No.503/1980 .
12.      By order dated  19th  March,  1980  leave  was  granted  in  SLP(C)
Nos.498-511/1980 and they were renumbered as Civil Appeal  Nos.608-621/1980.

         SLP(C) No.503/1980 filed by the  appellants  against  the  judgment
dated 27th February, 1979 passed in the case of  the  plaintiffs-respondents
was renumbered as Civil Appeal No.613/1980 after admission.
13.        Phiroze   Temulji   Anklesaria-petitioner   in   Special    Civil
Applications Nos. 1286/1972, 1487/1972, 1486/1972 and  1484/1972  had  filed
civil suits for rent and possession against the Government of  India  before
CJSD,  Pune.  Same  were  numbered  as  Civil  Suit  No.477/1980,  476/1980,
488/1980 and 475/1980.
         The said suits were decreed by the  CJSD,  Pune  relying  upon  the
decision of the Bombay High Court in Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria (supra).
14.       Against  the  aforesaid  judgment,  the  appellants  filed  appeal
Nos.1159/1984,  1160/1984  and  1161/1984.  Cross  Appeal  No.1/1985,  Cross
Appeal No.2/1985, Cross Appeal No.3/1985 were also filed in  those  appeals.
Second Appeal Nos.15 and 16 of  1989  were  subsequently  filed  before  the
Bombay High Court.
         When Civil Appeal Nos. 608-621/1980  preferred  by  the  appellants
against the original judgment in Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria (supra)  reached
for final hearing before this Court, the  abovementioned  appeals  preferred
before the Bombay High Court were called for by this  Court  on  the  ground
that they were interconnected.
         As a result appeals covered by SCA No.1286/72, SCA No.1486/72,  SCA
No.1487/72, SCA No.1484/72, SCA No.1485/72 got  transferred  to  this  Court
and numbered as Transferred Case Nos.67 to 72 of 1985 and 11 & 12 of 1987.
15.       Transferred Case Nos. 67 to 72 of 1985 and 11&12  of  1987  titled
Union of India & Others v.   P.T.  Ankleshwar  (dead)  by  LRs.  &  Ors.  on
hearing were remitted back to the High Court for disposal by this  Court  on
20th July, 1988, with the following directions:
          “1. While considering the merit of the case,  the High Court shall
      not place any reliance upon the Division Bench judgment  of  the  High
      Court consisting of D.H. Rege  and  R.A.  Jahangir,  JJ.  rendered  in
      Special Civil Application No. 1286/72 decided on  6/6  February,  1979
      against which appeals are pending in this Court.


      2. While considering the case, if the High Court finds that the  trial
      court or the first appellate court has placed  reliance  or  made  any
      reference to the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench,   it  shall
      ignore that judgment, to that extent, and the High Court shall  decide
      the  matter  afresh  in  accordance  with  law  without  taking   into
      consideration or being influenced by the  aforesaid  judgment  of  the
      Division Bench.


      3. The parties will be at liberty to adduce additional evidence before
      the High Court within the period fixed by the High Court.”

16.      Civil Appeal Nos. 608-621 of 1980 titled Union of  India  &  Others
v.  P.T. Ankleshwar (dead) by LRs. & Ors.  were  subsequently  taken  up  by
this Court and in the light of  observation  made  on  20th  July,  1988  in
Transferred Case Nos.67 to 72 of 1985 and 11&12 of 1987,  as  quoted  above,
by order dated 25th March, 1992, this  Court  declared  the  appeals  to  be
infructuous without prejudice to whatsoever rights to which  the  appellants
are entitled in law.
17.      The respondents, thereafter, filed  Civil  Application  No.3382  of
1992 in Special Civil Application No.1536 of 1973  before  the  Bombay  High
Court for possession of the suit premises. The  Bombay  High  Court  by  its
order dated  11th  September,  1992  directed  the  appellants  to  handover
symbolic  possession  of the suit premises bearing survey  no.258,  Bungalow
No.1-A  situated  at  Elphinstone  Road,  Pune  Cantonment,  Pune   to   the
respondents.
18.      The appellants filed a review application  before  this  Court  for
review of order dated 25th March, 1992 passed in  Civil  Appeal  Nos.608-621
of  1980  on  the  ground  that  only  the  civil  appeals  connected   with
transferred cases in which the issue of ownership of land and building  were
interlinked with validity of  resumption  notices  had  become  infructuous.
In other Civil Appeal Nos.620, 610, 613 (the appeal  preferred  against  the
judgment in the case of plaintiffs-respondents), 614, 618, 609  and  621  of
1980, the issue of ownership of land and building was not  interlinked  with
validity  of  resumption  notices  and  hence  the  same  had   not   become
infructuous.
19.      By the order dated 13th November,  1995,  this  Court  allowed  the
review application thereby  modifying  the  order  dated  25th  March,  1992
passed in Civil Appeal Nos.608-621 of 1980 by setting  aside  the  order  of
dismissal of the aforesaid civil appeals as infructuous  as  there  were  no
eviction decrees obtained by any of the bungalow owners.
20.      The aforesaid civil appeals including Civil Appeal No.613  of  1980
filed by the Union of India against the  plaintiffs-respondents  were  taken
up for hearing on 4th August, 1998 when the following order was passed:
       “Learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India would  seek
       dispossession of the  respondent  –  occupants  from  the  properties
       involved in accordance with  law and if  need  be,  through  a  Civil
       Court  by  filing  suits.   In  case  such  steps  are   taken,   any
       observations made by the High Court which would stand to  defeat  the
       remedies sought would not stand in its way.  On such  stance  of  the
       Union of India, Civil Appeals as also  the  special  leave  petitions
       stand disposed of accordingly.”




 21.     The plaintiffs-respondents thereafter filed  suit  for  possession,
arrears of rent and damages against the defendants-appellants in  the  Small
Causes Court at Pune numbered as  Civil  Suit  No.  695  of  1999.   It  was
contended therein that the defendants-appellants  served  resumption  notice
upon the plaintiffs-respondents which  was  challenged  by  the  plaintiffs-
respondents before the Bombay High Court in SCA No.1536 of  1973  which  was
allowed and  the  resumption  notice  was  declared  void,  inoperative  and
without legal effect.  The said order of the  High  Court  was  affirmed  in
Civil Appeal No.613 of 1980.  The appellants filed  review  application  and
the same was disposed  of  recording  the  statement  of  learned  Solicitor
General.  An Order which was passed  by  the  High  Court  with  respect  to
resumption  notice  was  not  set  aside.   Therefore,  the  occupation   of
defendants-appellants  in  the  said  property  is  that  of  lessee.    The
plaintiffs-respondents are, therefore, entitled to  ask  for  possession  of
the property from the defendants-appellants as the defendants are trying  to
set up adverse title.
22.      The defendants-appellants contested the  suit  by  filing  detailed
written statement.  It was brought to the  notice  of  the  Court  that  the
property was held on old grant terms, therefore the Government of India  has
every right to  resume  the  property.   It  was  also  contended  that  the
Government has resumed the property and the plaintiffs-respondents  have  no
right to ask for possession.   It  was  also  contended  that  the  Military
Authorities  have  made  a  plan  to  demolish  the  present  structure  and
construct a new building for accommodation of its  officers  and  therefore,
repair for the suit premises was not under taken.
23.      In the said suit the Trial Court framed the following issues:
|1) Do  plaintiffs prove that they are landlords and the     |
|defendants are tenants of the suit premises?                |
|2)  Do they prove that the defendants have committed breach |
|of agreement of lease by not maintaining the property and by|
|causing damage to it?                                       |
|3)    Do they prove that the defendants have disowned the   |
|title of the plaintiff and thereby committed breach of the  |
|agreement of lease?                                         |
|4)   Do they prove that the defendants have caused damage to|
|the extent of Rs.4 lac to the suit property?                |
|5)   Do they prove that the defendants are in arrears of    |
|rent since 1.7.1971 to 30.6.1999 at the rate of Rs.196/- per|
|month?                                                      |
|6)   Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try  |
|and decide this suit?                                       |
|7)   What is due to the plaintiffs?                         |
|8)  What relief, order and decree?                          |


24.      By judgment and decree  dated  9th  June,  2005,  the  Trial  Court
partially decreed the suit on the ground of breach of terms  and  conditions
of tenancy i.e. non-repair of the suit premises.
         The Trial Court directed the defendants-appellants to handover  the
vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises together with  structure
consisting  of  main  bungalow,  servant  quarter,  garage  and  any   other
structure thereon to the plaintiffs-respondents.
24.1     With reference to issue nos.1 and 6, it was held that  in  view  of
sale deed dated 12th November, 1968 in favour  of  the  Maneckji  Ankesaria,
the consent letter dated 19th December, 1967 and the lease  agreement  dated
29th August, 1941 the plaintiffs were only holders of  occupancy  rights  in
respect of the land and were owners of the superstructure.   The  defendants
were tenants and hence the suit was between the landlord and the tenant  and
the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain,  try  and  decide  the
same.
24.2     The issue no.3 was answered in negative with observation  that  the
defendants have legal right of resumption.   Mere  exercise  of  such  right
does not mean that the defendants have denied the lease hold right over  the
land and ownership of the superstructure of the plaintiff.
24.3     Issue no.5 regarding the defendants being in arrears of rent  since
17th July, 1979 to 30th June, 1999 @ Rs.196/-  per  month  was  answered  in
negative with the observation that there was no willful default on  part  of
the defendants and the defendants have deposited arrears of rent along  with
interest there on @ Rs.9% per annum before the date of hearing of the  suit.
 Thus, defendants are  entitled  to  protections  of  eviction  as  per  the
provisions of sub section 3 of Section 12 of  the  Bombay  Rent  Act.    The
defendants were not in arrears of the rent on the date  of  hearing  of  the
suit.
24.4     The issue no.2 regarding the breach and terms of the  agreement  by
not maintaining the property and by causing damage to  it  was  answered  in
affirmative.
24.5     The issue no.4 regarding the plaintiffs’ entitlement to damages  of
Rs.4 lakhs was answered in negative for want of evidence.
24.6     The issue no.7 regarding  the  amount  due  to  the  plaintiff  was
answered in negative.
25.      Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree  dated  9th  June,  2005
passed in Civil Suit No.695 of 99, the  appellants  preferred  Civil  Appeal
No.26 of 2006 in the District Court, Pune.
26.      In Civil Appeal  No.26  of  2006,  the  First  Appellate  Court  by
judgment and decree dated 15th January, 2009 while dismissed the appeal  and
modified the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court holding that  the
plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to recover  the  amount  of  Rs.20,972/-
along with cantonment taxes @ 6 per cent  per  annum  from   February,  2000
till the date of actual realization.
27.      Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 15th January,  2009
the appellants preferred Civil Revision Application No.272  of  2009  before
the Bombay High Court.  The Bombay High  Court  dismissed  the  same  giving
rise to the present appeal.
28.      Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General of  India  appearing
on behalf of the appellants-Union of India made the following  submissions:-

      (i) As per Section 2 of the Government Grants Act,  1895, Transfer  of
      Property Act, 1882 is not applicable to such  Government  grant  lands
      and the Government Grant is taken effect  as if the said Act  had  not
      been passed.


      (ii)         Not  only  the  Transfer  of  Property   Act    is   made
      inapplicable to the Government but Section 3 of the Government  Grants
      Act,1895 makes it clear that the Government grants is  to take  effect
      according to their tenor, notwithstanding any rule of law, Statute  or
      enactment  of the Legislature to  the contrary to the same.


      (iii)       (Crown)- Union of  India  has  unfettered  discretion   to
      impose any condition, limitation or  restriction  in  its  grants  and
      rights, privileges and obligations of the  grantee would be  regulated
      only in accordance with the  terms of the  grant  itself  though  they
      are inconsistent with the  provisions of any Statute or Common Law.


      (iv)        The possession of the house was taken  by  the  appellant-
      Union of India from the plaintiffs-respondents in due  course  of  law
      and  that the plaintiffs-respondents was not entitled  to  any  remedy
      against the Government either by way of a writ petition or a  suit  or
      under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.


      (v) Clause 4 of  the  Repairing  Lease  Deed   dated  29.08.1941  even
      protects the Government’s right  of  resumption  and  therefore,   the
      plaintiffs-respondents cannot derive advantage of the Repairing  Lease
      Deed for claiming right or title over the suit premises.


      (vi)        In view of the Section 3 of  the  Government  Grants  act,
      1895, the Bombay Rent Control Act will not be applicable in absence of
      landlord-tenant relationship,  the land  being  in  the  nature  of  a
      Government grant over which the super-structure was constructed.


      (vii)       No right has been vested or granted in the repair lease to
      the occupant to  evict  the  owner  of  the  land  who  in  this  case
      incidentally proceeded to become the occupant of  the  super-structure
      put up by the plaintiffs-respondents.   That will not create any legal
      landlord-tenant relationship as in other  cases  as  the  property  in
      question  falls  in    the  cantonment  area  and   is   governed   by
      Government grants.

29.      On the other hand, learned counsel for  the  plaintiffs-respondents
raised following grounds to dismiss the appeal:
      (i) The High Court’s judgment  dated  27.2.1979  passed  in  the  Writ
      Petition preferred by  plaintiffs-respondents  in  SCA  No.  1536/1973
      setting aside the  notice of resumption  dated  11th  June,  1971  has
      reached finality.  The legality and propriety  of  aforesaid  decision
      cannot be raised at this stage.
      (ii)        In absence of jurisdictional error  committed  by  Court’s
      below, the  High  Court  was  right  in  refusing  to  interfere  with
      concurrent findings of fact.   The scope  of  Revisional  Jurisdiction
      under Section 115 CPC is limited and the same cannot be  exercised  to
      interfere with the finding of fact.


      (iii)       Since the High Court’s approach and analysis  is  correct,
      this Court should not exercise its power  under  Article  136  of  the
      Constitution to set aside the impugned order.


30.      The case of  the  appellants  is  that  the  suit  premises  (land)
belongs to Union of India- “Pune Cantonment Board”.  It was allotted by  way
of grant to one Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria who erected  super  structure
including bungalow, garage and servant quarter.  In 1891, the suit  bungalow
no.1A, Elphinstone Road was bequeathed to Maneckhji  Nusserwanji  Anklesaria
by his  father  Nusserwanji  Sorabji  Anklesaria.   The  name  of  Maneckhji
Nusserwanji was registered in the General Land  Register.   Therein  it  was
mentioned that the bungalow in  question  is  held  under  old  grant  under
conditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January, 1827.
         The aforesaid fact is also clear from the agreement  and  repairing
lease dated 29th August, 1941 reached between Maneckhji Nusserwanji and  the
Governor General in Council wherein at clause iii (4)  it  is  mentioned  as
follows;
      “(4) Nothing herein shall prejudice the right  of  the  party  of  the
      second part to resume under the terms of the Cantonment  tenure  above
      referred to; and


      (5) In the event of any dispute arising  between  the   party  of  the
      first  part  and  the  party  of  the  second  part  as  regards   the
      interpretation of any terms or condition herein  contained,  the  same
      shall  be referred to C.R.E. Poona Area whose decision will be final.”

31.      The consent letter dated 19th December, 1967  written  by  Maneckji
Nassurwanji Anklesaria to the Military Estates  Officer,  Poona  Cantonment,
Poona shows that permission for sale of property bearing No.1A,  Elphinstone
Road, Poona  Cantonment,  Poona  was  sought  for  by  Maneckji  Nassurwanji
Anklesaria and two others as they wanted to sell of their right,  title  and
interest in the property to Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others as  a
part of settlement of the family dispute.  Permission was  also  sought  for
to complete the said transaction with clear assurance that Dinshaw  Shapurji
Anklesaria and two others in whose favour the rights are sought to  be  sold
are ready to execute such  document  in  favour  of  the  State  as  may  be
required under the existing rules.
32.      The Military Estates Officer, Poona Circle in  reference  to  above
letter dated 19th December, 1967 informed  Maneckji  Nassurwanji  Anklesaria
that sanction was accorded to the transfer by sale of the above bungalow  to
Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and others and ask them to comply  with  certain
instructions, as evident from the said letter, is quoted below:
                                                                  “No. H/517
                                         Office of the Mily. Esates Officer,
                                       Poone Circle, Poona-1, 25 June, 1968.
    To,
                 Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria,
                 94, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
                 Poona-1.


                 Subject:          Transfer of B.No.1-B Elphinestone Road,
                                   Poona Cantonment.
    Dear Sir,
                 Reference your letter dated 19.12.1967.
    2.   With the previous concurrence of the GOC-in-C,  Southern  Command,
    Poona sanction is hereby accorded to the transfer by sale of the  above
    bungalow to Shri. Dinshaw S.  Anklesaria and  others  of  94-A  Mahatma
    Gandhi Road, Poona-1 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- subject to the  condition
    that the intending purchasers  executed  and  registers  the  admission
    certificate of their own expense as per their undertaking dated 3.1.68.


    3.   Please comply with the following instructions:-


        i) It should be mentioned in the sale deed to be executed that  the
           land is held on old Tenure and is not being sold.


       ii) The date of execution of the sale and the  number  and  date  on
           which it was accepted for registration should  be  intimated  to
           this office.


      iii)        The sale deed duly registered should be forwarded to  this
           office through CPO, Poona for necessary mutation  entries  being
           made in the GLR.  The document will be returned when  no  longer
           required.


                                                           Yours faithfully,
                                                                        Sd/-
                                                    Military Estate Officer,
                                                               Poona Circle,
                                                               (Y.P. Kapoor)
    Copy to:-
          Shri. Dinshaw S.  Anklesaria and others,
          94-A, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
           Poona-1.       – With reference  his  undertaking  dated  3.1.68
                 please forward a non-judicial stamp paper to the  value  of
                 Rs.3.00 together with site  plan  (one  on  tracing  cloth)
                 …….drawn to a scale 40’ to an inch in respect of the  above
                 bungalow  showing  the  existing  authorized  buildings  to
                 enable this office to take further necessary action in  the
                 matter.


           The C.R.O,              -  For information.
           Poona-1.”


33.      Indenture  of sale made and executed  on  12th  November,  1968  by
Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria and two others (vendors) in  favour  of  the
Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others (vendee) reads as follows:-
         “Whereas the  vendors  are  fully  seized  and  possessed  of  and
    otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to all the lease – hold rights
    in all that piece and parcel of land being perpetual  grant  under  the
    old grant of the Poona Cantonment and of the full right of ownership of
    all the building and structure standing on the property known as  No.1-
    A,  Elphinestone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona 1 and which property  is
    more described in the Schedule  “A”  hereunder  written……………………………..the
    vendors agreed to sell and the purchaser agreed  to  purchase  all  the
    leasehold rights being perpetual grant under the old grant of the Poona
    Cantonment Board in all that piece and  parcel  of  the  land  situated
    within the Registration District of Poona and Registration Sub-District
    of Taluka Haveli and situated within the limits of the Poona Cantonment
    Board and within the Revenue limits of Taluka Poona  City  and  bearing
    Poona Cantonment No.1-A, Elphinestone Road, Poona  Cantonment,  Poona-1
    and bearing G.L.R. and Survey No. 258 and bearing Military Estate House
    No.517 along with the full rights of ownership of all buildings  out  –
    houses,  structures,  appurtenances  and  benefits  of  all   amenities
    belonging to or available to the said property and  which  property  is
    more fully described in the Schedule ‘A’ hereunder written,  free  from
    all encumbrances, charges, burdens……..”


34.      Thereafter, Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria purchaser of  the  bungalow
no.1A, Elphinstone  Road,  Poona  Cantonment  signed  admission  certificate
dated 19th April, 1971 with following conditions:
                           “Admission Certificate


   We, the undersigned,  Shri  Dinashaw  S.  Anklesaria  residing  at  94-A
   Mahatma Gandhi Road, Poona Cantonment, the purchaser of Bungalow  No.1A,
   Elphinstone  Road  General  Land  Register  Survey   No.258   of   Poona
   Cantonment, Sub District and Taluka Haveli, District  Poona,  do  hereby
   subscribe to the conditions (reproduced below)  of  the  original  grant
   pertaining to the site thereof and this agreement shall be binding on me
   as well as my heirs, successors and assigns as the case may  be  whoever
   shall be in possession of the said property.


                                 Conditions


1. Permission  to  occupy  ground  in  a  Military  Cantonment  confers  no
   proprietary  right;  it  continuous  the  property  of  the  Estate  and
   presumable at the pleasure of Government, but in  all  practicable  case
   one month’s notice of resumption will be given  and  the  value  of  all
   buildings which may have been authorized to be erected thereon, as shown
   in the accompanying plan, as estimated by the Committee contemplated  in
   General Order-Separate of 1856, will be paid to the owner.


2. That no buildings are to be erected on the ground other than  those  now
   existing and shown on the attached plan no additions or alternations are
   to be made thereto without the permission of the Officer Commanding  the
   Station.


3. The ground, being the property of  Government  cannot  be  sold  by  the
   grantee.  The buildings may be sold by  house  owners  of  the  previous
   permission of the Officer Commanding the Station.


4. That the Military Authorities have the power to cancel the grant if  the
   ground is used for any purpose other than for which  it  was  originally
   granted.


5. We also agree to abide by any  orders  and  rules  that  may  be  passed
   regarding tenure of land in cantonments.


   Place:        Poona
   Dated:        April 1971


                                               Signature of the purchaser of
                                           Bungalow No.1-A, Elphinstone Road
                                                Sy. No.258 Poona Cantonment.


   The above conditions have been explained  by  me  to  the  purchaser  of
   Bungalow No.1-A  Elphinstone  Road,  Poona  Cantonment,  and  have  been
   subscribed to by him in my presence.


   Place:        Poona
   Dated:        19th April, 1971
                                                    Military Estates Officer
                                                                Poona Circle
                                                             (K.C. Agarwal)”

35.      From the aforesaid records, it is clear that  the  land   measuring
0.90  acres  bearing  General  Land  Register  Survey  No.258  situated   at
Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona belongs  to  the  appellant.   The
said land was leased by way of  grant  originally  to   Nusserwanji  Sorabji
Anklesaria under conditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January,  1827.   The  super
structure including bungalow, garage and servant quarter  on  the  plot  was
constructed by him.  In the year 1891, the  super  structure  bequeathed  to
his son-Maneckhji Nusserwanji.  Maneckhji  Nusserwanji  Anklesaria  and  two
others sold their right, title and interest over the  super  structure  i.e.
bungalow no.1A in favour of  Dinshaw  Shapurji  Anklesaria  and  two  others
(nephews of Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria).  Thereby file  of  the  super
structure was transferred in favour of Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria  and  two
others but the title of the land remained with the appellant.
36.      This is also evident from General Land Register- Cantonment  8-A(1)
dated 7th March, 2007 and relevant portion of which is as follows:
|“Extract Form General Land Register-                             |
|Cantonment 8-A(1)                                                |
|Survey No.258 S No.122       |VOL. No.II   |PAGE                  |
|Details and date of mutation |1            |                      |
|Subsidiary Sy. No.           |2            |                      |
|Volume & Page No. of Register|3            |                      |
|Area in Acres/Sq.Ft.         |4            |0.90 acre             |
|Description                  |5            |Bungalow No.1A,       |
|                             |             |Elphinstone Road      |
|Class                        |6            |B-3                   |
|By whom managed              |7            |D.E.O                 |
|Landlord                     |8            |Central Government    |
|Holder of occupancy rights   |9            |Maneckhji Nusserwanji |
|Nature of Holder’s right     |10           |Old Grant conditions  |
|under GGO                    |             |of 14 of 6.1.1827     |
|Rent payable: Central Govt.  |11           |                      |
|Per annum Cantt. Board       |             |                      |
|Date of expiry of lease      |12           |                      |
|Remarks                      |13           |                      |
|Station: Pune-1              |             |Sd/-                  |
|Dated: 07, March, 2007       |             |Defence Estates       |
|                             |             |Officer               |
|                             |             |Pune Circle           |
|                             |             |(SR. Nayyar)”         |

37.      The Government of India from Ministry of Defence  by  notice  dated
11th June, 1971 intimated Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and  two  others  that
the land belongs to the President of India i.e. the Government and  is  held
on Old Grant terms under which the Government  is  entitled  to  resume  the
same.  It was informed that the Government has  resumed  the  said  property
under the terms of the aforesaid Old Grant for its  use  and  therefore,  in
exercise of power conferred under the provisions of the Act agreed to  offer
a sum of Rs.31,537/- as the value of the  authorized  erection  standing  on
the said land.  It was further intimated that  in  case  if  the  amount  of
compensation offered was not acceptable to the respondent,  a  committee  of
arbitration will be convened to assess the value  of  the  erection  on  the
land.  A cheque for the  amount  was  also  attached  along  with  the  said
notice.
38.      The Government Grants Act,  1895  as  would  be  evident  from  the
preamble and Section 2 therein, seeks to clarify the doubts with  regard  to
the extended operation of the Transfer of Property Act.  Section  2  of  the
Act reads as follows:
         “2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882,  not  to  apply  to  Government
    grants.-Nothing in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contained  shall
    apply or be deemed ever to have applied to any grant or other  transfer
    of land or of any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter  to  be
    made by or on behalf of the Government to, or in favour of, any  person
    whosoever; but every such grant and transfer  shall  be  construed  and
    take effect as if the said Act had not been passed.”

39.      Not only the Transfer of Property Act is made inapplicable  to  the
Government grants but Section 3 of the Government Grants Act,  1895  further
makes it clear that the Government grants is to  take  effect  according  to
their tenor, notwithstanding any rule of law, statute or  enactment  of  the
Legislature to the contrary.  Section 3 lays down as follows:-
    “3. Government grants to take effect according  to  their  tenor.-  All
    provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations over contained  in
    any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and  the  effect
    according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment of  the
    Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding.”

40.      This Court in Azim Ahmad  Kazmi  and  Others.  v.  State  of  Uttar
Pradesh and Another, (2012) 7 SCC 278, has held that  the  Government  grant
of lease of land is governed entirely by the terms of the grant.  The  Court
took note of Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 which is  to  take
effect  according  to  its  tenor  notwithstanding  any  other  law  to  the
contrary.
41.      In Chief Executive Officer v.  Surendra  Kumar  Vakil  and  Others,
(1999) 3 SCC 555, this Court has held that the grantee under the  old  grant
terms is a mere occupier/licensee having no title over the  land  so  as  to
entitle him to transfer the land or to another person without prior  consent
of the authorities concerned. The Court further held  that  the  regulations
as well as the General Land Register which are old documents  maintained  in
the regular course and coming from proper custody clearly indicate that  the
land was held on old grant basis and this was sufficient for the  Government
to resume the land in accordance with law.
42.      In Union of India and others v. Kamla Verma,  (2010)  13  SCC  511,
this Court has held that it is always open to the Union of India  to  resume
the land held on old grant terms and that  the  Union  of  India  cannot  be
prevented from resuming the said land.
43.       Therefore,  it  is  clear  that  the  Government  has   unfettered
discretion  and  under  Section  3  impose  any  condition,  limitation   or
restriction in its grants and the rights, privileges and obligations of  the
grantee would be regulated only according to the terms of the  grant  itself
though they may be inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  any  Statute  or
Common Law.
44.      The grants of lands situated in cantonment area  under  Old  Grants
form a self contained provision prescribing the procedure as  to  the  grant
and resumption of the land and hence recourse to the  Civil  Procedure  Code
or the Specific Relief Act will not be applicable.
45.      From  the  permission  for  sale  of  property  letter  dated  19th
December,  1967,  Indenture  of  Sale  dated   12th   November,   1968   and
admission certificate dated 19th April, 1971 signed by the respondent it  is
clear that the Military Authorities have the power to cancel  the  grant  if
the land is used for any purpose other than for it was  originally  granted.

46.      In the suit the plaintiffs-respondents  falsely  claimed  that  the
suit premises described in para 1 of the plaint is owned by  the  plaintiffs
as freehold property. This would be evident from the pleadings made  by  the
plaintiffs-respondents, as discussed below.
47.      The description of the property has been shown at  paragraph  1  of
the plaint as under:
         “1.      Description of the Property:
          All that piece and parcel of property bearing  GLR  Survey  No.258
          and corresponding an area of 0.90 acres together  with  structure
          consisting of main Bungalow, Servant Quarter Garage  and  Servant
          Quarter, and bounded as under:
          On or towards the East: Elphinstone Road
          On or towards the South: Bungalow No.2, Elphinstone Road
          On or towards the West: Bungalow No.13, Moldina Road
          On or towards the North: Bungalow No.13, Moledina Road”

         Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint read as under:
          “2. That the property described  in  Para  1  above  is  owned  by
       plaintiffs as freehold property.
          3. That the said  property  originally  belonged  to  Nusserwanjee
       Sorabji Anklesaria.  Plaintiffs have purchased the  property  as  per
       conveyance deed dated 12.11.1968  from  Shri  Maneckaji  Nusserwanjee
       Ankelsaria.  That name of plaintiffs was also recorded in GLR  Record
       and which was subsequently removed by the defendant  no.2  illegally.
       The plaintiff has challenged the  aforesaid  act  of  defendant  no.2
       deleting the name of the plaintiffs in Civil Court.
          4.      That lease deed dated 29.8.1941 was executed by  the  then
       owners of the suit property and Union of  India.   That  as  per  the
       aforesaid lease deed the said property was leased out  to  defendants
       under repairing lease for a period of 5 years.  After the  expiry  of
       the said period the defendants continued to be in use and  occupation
       of the said property as at tenant holding over on the same terms  and
       conditions as a monthly tenant.  Thus the  defendants  are  occupying
       the said property as a statutory tenant only.”

48.      The plaintiffs-respondents also misled the Court  by  stating  that
the resumption notice dated 11th June, 1971 was  set  aside  by  the  Bombay
High Court and the said order has attained finality.
49.      In fact the judgment aforesaid on challenge before  this  Court  in
Civil Appeal No.613 of 1980, heard along with other appeals, this  Court  by
order dated 4th August, 1998 made the following observation:
                                   “Order
    Learned Solicitor General states that the Union  of  India  would  seek
    dispossession of the respondent-occupants from the properties  involved
    in accordance with law and if need be, through a Civil Court by  filing
    suits.  In case such steps are taken, any observations made by the High
    Court which would stand to defeat the remedies sought would  not  stand
    in its way.  On such stance of the Union of  India,  Civil  Appeals  as
    also the special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.”

50.      The  liberty  given  to  the  Union  of  India  to  dispossess  the
plaintiffs-respondents from the suit property  clearly  indicates  that  the
decision of the Bombay High Court that the suit premises do  not  belong  to
the Union of India was not acceptable to this Court.
51.       The  aforesaid  misleading  pleading  made  by   the   plaintiffs-
respondents is without any evidence and the same  influenced  the  Court  in
coming to  a  wrong  conclusion  that  the  plaintiffs-respondents  are  the
landlords and defendants-appellants are the tenants of the suit premises.
52.      The Appellate Court also failed  to  appreciate  the  evidence  and
erred in affirming the Trial Court’s view  that  the  plaintiffs-respondents
are the landlords and defendants-appellants are the tenants.
53.      The land of the  suit  premises  belong  to  the  Union  of  India-
appellants herein.  Therefore, they cannot be held  to  be  tenants  of  the
suit premises comprising of an area of 0.90 acres  together  with  structure
consisting of main Bungalow, Servant Quarter and Garage.
54.      The plaintiffs-respondents have  only  right  with  regard  to  the
structure built on the suit premises.  The Union of India-appellants have  a
right for resumption of the suit  premises,  as  evident  from  evidence  on
record as discussed above. This issue was not properly  appreciated  by  the
Trial Court, the Appellate Court and the High Court  which  also  failed  to
notice the appellants’ right under Section 2 and 3 of the Government  Grants
Act, 1895.
55.      For the reasons aforesaid,  we  set  aside  the  impugned  judgment
dated 25th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature  at  Bombay
in Civil Revision Application  No.272  of  2009,  the  judgment  dated  15th
January, 2009 passed by the First Appellate Court and  judgment  and  decree
dated 9th June, 2005 passed by the Trial Court. Civil  Suit  No.695/1999  on
the file of Small Causes Court, Pune is dismissed.
56.      The appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs.

                                                      ………………………………………………….J.
                                                  (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)



                                                      ………………………………………………….J.
                                          (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)



                                                       ……………………………………………….J.
                                                  (KURIAN JOSEPH)

NEW DELHI,
MAY 06,   2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.