GOPI CHAND SHIVHARE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioners have sought a declaration that the lease deed dated 23rd August 1923 does not cover their bungalow No. 65, Taj Road, Agra Cantonment and have prayed for quashing the notice dated 16th September 1970 whereby the lease with respect of the said bungalow was terminated and the petitioners were directed to deliver up to the Central Government the land comprised in the said demise together with all erections and which may be standing thereon payment of compensation for such erections and buildings only and a sum of Rs. 9084.00 was offered as compensation for the authorised erections standing on the land. The petitioners also sought a direction to the respondents to mutate in the name of the petitioners bungalow No. 65, Taj Road, Agra Cantt. showing them as the landlords/owners of the said bungalow and the land comprising there under.

(2.) The case of the petitioners as set out in the writ petition is that they are absolute owners of bungalow No. 65 standing on survey No. 477 admeasuring 1.719 acres situated in Agra Cantt. According to the petitioners the original bungalow was in existence for over 100 years and no records are available to show that for putting up the bungalow any grant of the land was made by the Government to the predecessors in title of the petitioners. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners had purchased bungalow No. 65 under a Sale Deed dated December 1962 from its previous Owner. On this basis the petitioners claim that they are the sole and absolute owners of the said bungalow including the land underneath and respondents have no right to resume the land and ask the petitioners to hand over possession thereof including that of the erections existing there on.

(3.) The case of the respondents is that the land covered by bungalow No. 65 is part of a bigger piece of land, and the entire piece of land was subject matter of 33 years lease granted by the Secretary of State for India in favour of the erstwhile lessee. The said lease expired in 1956 and was not renewed thereafter. The petitioners are claiming title to the bungalow in question from its previous title holders who have always acknowledged the existence of the lease and it is a case of holding over of the tenancy after the expiry of the lease. Therefore, the respondents claim that they are entitled to terminate the lease and resame possession of the land including the authorised erections thereon after paying compensation for the same.