BRIGADE COMMANDER MEERUT SUB-AREA Vs. GANGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal against an order of Mehrotra J., allowing a writ petition and quashing a notice issued by the Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub Area, dated 29-9-1952, requiring the respondent Ganga Prasad Dubey to vacate a certain piece of land after demolition of the construction thereon, under Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950.

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are as follows. In the year 1923 one Kesho Prasad who was in authorised possession of 798 Sq. feet of land within the limits of the Cantonment Board, Meerut sold the land with the constructions thereon to one Babu Lal. In 1929 Babu Lal applied to the Cantonment Board for being permitted to make constructions over a portion of the land. The Cantonment Board sanctioned the constructions. In making the constructions Babu Lal is alleged to have encroached upon certain land belonging to the Government. Thereupon on 28-4-1936 a suit was filed on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Military Estates Officer for possession over the land so alleged to have been encroached upon. During the pendency of these proceedings Babu Lal sold the land in his possession and the constructions to one Sri Ram Gopal on 9-6-1936. On 19-11-1936 the suit was decreed ex parte against Babu Lal. On 18-5-1937 Sri Ram Gopal sold the land and the constructions to Ganga Prasad Dubey respondent. In execution proceedings on behalf of the Secretary of State an application was made to implead Ganga Prasad. Dubey as a judgment-debtor and for permission for execution of the decree against him. The application was refused by the execution court but was allowed by the appellate court. The decree was then executed on 14-1-1938 and according to the respondent a portion of a platform covering an area of 131 Sq. feet was demolished.

(3.) Ganga Prasad Dubey then filed a suit for a declaration that the land should be regarded as an area held by an authorised person for the reason that the encroachment, even if there was one, must be deemed to have been condoned in the events that had happened. In that suit it was held that the disputed land had become private occupied land, but the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time.