9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/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 v. H.C. Vashistha and Ors. AIR 1980 Bom 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and 12 of 1987 titled Union of India and Ors. v. P.T. Ankleshwar (dead) by L.Rs. and 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 b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upants 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Ors. and ask them to comply with certain instructions, as evident from the said letter, is quoted below: No. H/517 Office of the Mily. Estates 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 Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antonment 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, suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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: 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. 42. In Union of India and Ors. 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 Code of Civil Procedure 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olicitor 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-Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
