MOHAMMAD HANIF Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the High court of Assam and Nagaland, dated 22/04/1966, in Civil Rule No. 36 of 1963, whereby the High court by majority judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) The land in dispute was originally located in the State of Hyllien in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. This land was leased out in perpetuity to the British government by Khasi land owners Thholyomawrie and U. Mongermawrio by a deed of lease executed on November 4, 1874. On 1/04/1907, the secretary of State for India on behalf of the British Crown made a settlement of the land with Captain S. M. Manley for 99 years on a premium of Rs. 716-8-0. and annual revenue of Rs. 35-13-8. The document of lease was executed, by the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills. On March 18, 1907) , Captain Manley sold his right and title in the land to Messrs. Jarnatuliah Sons. Subsequent to the sale Messrs. Jamatullah and Sons constructed three houses on the land, known as 'cedar Lodge', 'cryptomaria' and 'eldorado'. The appellant is the successor of Messrs. Jamatullah and Sons. Out of the three buildings, the appellant has been living in 'eldorado' 'and the other two buildings have been given on rent to the government of Assam. 'cryptomaria' is occupied by one of the Ministers of the government of Assam and Cedar Lodge has been occupied by the offices of the Electricity Board. Clause V of the lease in favour of Captain Manley reads as follows :

(3.) On behalf of the appellant Mr. B. Sen stressed the argument that there was no disputed question of title involved in this case. The title of the appellant as a grantee was n6t questioned on behalf of the respondent. The only question at issue is whether the respondent was entitled to resume the land by virtue of Clause V of the lease, dated 1/04/1907 by the secretary of State for India in favour of Capt. Monley. In our opinion there is justification for the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant. On behalf of the respondent, however, the Attorney General referred to the decision of this court in State of orissa v. Ramchandra.