FARID AHMAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF UNITED PROVINCES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal.

(2.) The United Provinces Government filed a suit for possession of a piece of land described at the foot of the plaint, which, it is now admitted, is a part of a bigger plot No. 73 having an area of 3.73 acres and situate in Mohalla Naugaza in Muttra. The claim on behalf of the plaintiff is based on the ground that the land in suit had at one time vested in the Cantonment Board and on 23rd December 1881, the Cantonment Board had transferred this land along with other land to the civil authorities. Not much is known about the ancient history of this land except this that there are certain very old graves on this land, and at the time of the inspection the learned Civil Judge found one of the graves having an inscription of 11th century Hijri. There was a long grave on the spot known as "Naugaza" and it is mentioned in one of the judgments that it was supposed to be the grave of one of the old giants in pre historic days who used to attain heights of about nine yards. Muttra was conquered by Lord Lake's army in 1803 from the Marathas and the British had a big cantonment there for several years. After the conquest in 1803 the plot No. 73 along with certain other plots were all included in the Muttra cantonment. Whatever rights the original owners of the plots had in the lands, after the conquest in 1803 their rights came to an end unless by an express or implied agreement the new Sovereign Authority had elected to respect and recognise and be bound by the previous rights : see Secretary of State v. Bai Raj Bai, 13 A. L. J. 953 : (A. I. R. (2) 1915 P. C. 59).

(3.) We do not know anything about this land till we come to the year 1877. In that year the cantonment authorities evidently wanted to build two bungalows. There were inquiries made through one Mr. Whiteaway, Settlement Officer, who prepared a register and a map of the Muttra cantonment. In that register he noted against each plot the names of persons who were in possession of the cantonment authorities. That register is not forthcoming and it is said on behalf of the plaintiff that the register has been destroyed. The map is, however, available. From the report of the Settlement Officer, Ex. 10, dated 23rd June 1877, as also from the inspection note of the learned Civil Judge it appears that there were a number of old graves on this plot. In his report the Settlement Officer classified the land under various heads and mentioned that there were enclosures with bungalows and buildings and there were enclosures without bungalows, and for these enclosures without bungalows rent was being paid to the military authorities in certain cases and no rent was being paid to the military authorities for others. For those for which no rent was being paid, he made inquiries as regards title and he found that there were some who were able to produce title deeds which had been countersigned by the military authorities, while there were others who, though they were in possession, were not able to produce any title deeds either executed or countersigned by military authorities. Those in possession of plot No. 73 came into this latter category, that is they were persona who were not paying rent to military authorities and were not able to produce any title deeds executed or countersigned by the military authorities. Mr. Whiteaway, however, mentioned that almost all the plots were in the possession of men who had been in possession for a very long time and it was not worthwhile to interfere with those items of property as it would give rise to a great deal of heart-burning. Evidently the properties were not of much value at the time, and the Settlement Officer did not consider it worthwhile that the Cantonment Board should take steps to assert its title and eject the persona who had ancient possession but were not able to produce their title deeds. In this document the names of those who were in possession of plot No. 73 were not given. The possession of such persons was, evidently, adverse as they were claiming to be the owners of the plot though, they were not able to produce any document of title countersigned by the military authorities.