ROBERT ZOMAWIA STREET Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the appellate judgment dated 03.08.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Shillong in RFA No. 1 (H) of 2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 of the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong in TS No. 5(H) of 1993 dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE case of the appellant, as pleaded in the plaint, is that he belongs to a Mizo community, which is a recognized Scheduled Tribe of Meghalaya and is the founder Principal of, and has been running, St. John's School Whitehall for quite sometime. THE land comprising the site of Bungalow No. 18 lying over a plot of land measuring 4.261 acres, morefully described in the schedule to the plaint and hereinafter referred to as "the suit land", situate within Shillong Military Cantonment are occupied by him had originally belonged to the late St. John Perry, who along with his wife were looked after by him at their old age days. So, out of natural love and affection for him, the late St. John Perry executed the Will dated 6.12.1980 bequeathing the suit land with the structures thereon upon him (the appellant) and after his death, he (the appellant) became the absolute owner thereof. THE learned District Judge, Shillong probated the Will on 26.6.1987 in favour of the appellant on contest by the respondents: the probate so granted has never been taken to appeal by the respondent authorities. THE appellant thereafter renovated the suit property by incurring a large sum of money. On the basis of the probate, the appellant approached the respondent No. 2 for mutation of the said land in his name in the GLR, but the said respondent supplied him a pro-forma declaration form in which he was asked to admit the proprietory right of the Government of India over the same with their right to resume the same. THE appellant, however, refused to comply with the request of the respondents as the same amounted to duress and unnecessary pressure by the respondents so as to create their title over the suit property.

(3.) THE further case of the respondents is that as the Government had decided to resume the suit property as per the terms of the old grants for bona fide defence use, the resumption order and notice together with the cost of the structure were served upon the occupancy holder at his last known address. However, the resumption notice could not be served to the demise of the late St. John Perry. THE appellant had inherited the occupancy rights of the suit property by will, it was decided to recover the same from the appellant through the PPE Act. As per the existing procedure for resumption, a Committee of Officers was formed to prepare valuation of the authorised structures owned by the appellant, and the appellant was informed the cost of the structure amounting to Rs. 1,72,094/- as evaluated by the said Committee and was asked his acceptance thereof. He was also asked to execute an admission deed before updating the Government record. According to the respondents, the suit property was settled with the British Government as early as in 1863 under the Bengal Army Regulation upon which the Cantonment had been established. No private land within the notified boundary of Shillong Cantonment exists thereon, which is sufficient evidence to prove that the land was originally settled with the said G.H. James in the year 1980 (sic) who in the deed had admitted that the suit property belongs to the Government of India and was settled with the appellant under the terms of the "Old Grants". THE respondents denied that the admission of the ownership of the Government over the suit property by the predecessors had been made under duress. THE Cantonment land including the suit property was acquired by the British Government as early as in 1863 (sic) by an agreement with the System of Mylliem. THEre is no cause of action for the suit. THEse are the sum and substance of the case of the respondents.