DR. G. RANGANATHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the petitioner in Administrative Case No.13 of 1963 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, are the appellants. These proceedings have a chequered history.

(2.) One Ponnamallee, wife of Krishnasami was granted certain lands of an extent about 2 kanies and 39 kuzhies equivalent to about 5 acres by an order of the then French Government on 23.03.1840. The said grant further reads that land bearing mulberry trees, forming part of the farmer grant to St.Hilaire was bestowed on Ponnamallee, husband of Krishnasami, on condition that the grantee causes a choultry to be built therein and to dig a pond within a time limit of two years. The said grant was confirmed by an order (Arrete) issued in the name of the King on 05.04.1841. In the said order issued on 05.04.1841, the grant was made subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions that was imposed under the Arrete dated 05.04.1841 was that the grant will be withdrawn if she fails to construct the choultry and dig a pond within two years i.e. by the end of March 1842. It is not in dispute that the grantee, namely Ponnamallee had complied with the conditions imposed by the Arrete dated 05.04.1841 and she continued to be in possession of land along with a choultry and the pond for several years thereafter. While so, by an order dated 25.06.1963, the Chief Commissioner cancelled the grant and the same was given effect by an order/Arrete dated 25.06.1963. The legal representatives of Ponnamallee, who had by then come into possession of the property in question assailed the said cancellation before the "Conseil du contentieum Administratif" at Pondicherry. Upon the enactment of the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act in 1966, the said proceedings stood transferred to the file of the District Court at Pondicherry. The basis of the revocation of the grant was that the purpose for which the grant was made in the year 1841 is no longer relevant, and since 1947, a portion of the land was let out for commercial purposes.

(3.) According to the legal representatives of the grantee, the cancellation itself was at the instance of the tenants, who had defaulted in payment of rents, against whom eviction proceedings were launched by the legal representatives of the grantee. The cancellation of the grant made by the Chief Commissioner was challenged by the legal representatives, questioning the competence of the Commissioner to cancel the grant on the ground that the grant being an unconditional grant, the same cannot be cancelled. It was also contended that in view of the enfranchisement that had taken place in the year 1854 in the French Colony, the grantee has become the absolute owner of the property and the Government as such was denuded of the rights to cancel the grant exercising the sovereign right. It was also contended by the legal representatives of the grantee that the purpose of the grant did survive. In fact the finding of the Chief Commissioner that the purpose of the grant does not survive was attacked by the legal representatives of the grantee as a distortion of fact.