RAJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ubi jus Ibi remedium save the maxim. If so, the converse should also be true. namely. "where there is no right; there is no remedy." It is also equally true that even where right exists it has to be enforced in due course of law. It cannot be enforced by self-help without recourse to law. No body can be allowed to take the law into his own hands. If, therefore, a person without right to a property is dispossessed by the owner thereof directly and without recourse to judicial machinery, can the former successfully challenge the legality of the dispossession ? This question which arises frequently in courts has to be decided in the light of the above principles which may appear to be conflicting but would be found to be reconcilable.

(2.) Shri Raj Singh through his predecessors-in-title held a plot, of land in Meerut Cantonment on what are known as the "old grant" terms, A house has been built on the plot. He purchased the house in 1941 for Rupees 14000.00. On 4th November 1970, however, he received the impugned notice in the following terms:

(3.) The writ petition was heard by Sachar J. before whom the following grounds were urged in its support by the petitioner: