(1.) The petitioner prays under Article 226 of the constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to (i) mutate his name as 'Private Owner' of 'Bungalow No. 29, Chaitham Lines, Survey No. 143, Old Cantonment Allahabd' (hereinafter referred to as the Bungalow) and (ii) accept property taxes from him in regard thereto and (iii) to award him costs.The Backdrop :-2. From the writ petition, counter-affidavits and Rejoinder thereto exchanged between the parties, and the records called for at the request of learned counsel for both sides it is apparent that in regard to thebungalow there were series of litigations, which are necessary to be mentioned first in seriatim.
(2.) In execution of a decree against the judgment-debtors-Scott and Spencer, the bungalow was auction sold on 26th November, 1848 and purchased for Rs. 2,900.00 by the decree-holder Lala Manohar Lal, (Grand Father of the Petitioner) and that auction sale was confirmed by the Court on 27-12-1848.2.2 The Respondents on behalf of the Union of India on the strength of Governor General's Order No. 179 dated 12th September, 1836 tried to take possession of the bungalow by issuing resumption notice on 26/12/1968 to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 175 of 1969 before this Court challenging this notice alleging, inter alia, that the bungalow is in his possession being his private property, which he had got through auction sale and family settlement; that the Union of India is not the owner of the disputed property; and that his title was also perfected by adverse possession. His claim was contended by the Respondents on various grounds which are not necessary to be mentioned.This writ petition was finally dismissed with certain liberties to both parties vide Order dated 6/07/1970, the relevant portion of which reads thus :-
(3.) The Allahabad Polytechnic filed original Suit No. 161 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad asserting itself to be tenant of the petitioner and impleading him and the Union of India as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively claiming following reliefs :-