ESTATE OFFICER Vs. SOMWANTI AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal that has been filed by the appellants-defendants (henceforth called 'the appellants') seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2010 passed by the lower court, decreeing the suit of respondent No.1-plaintiff (henceforth called 'respondent No.1') as well as judgment and decree dated 17.11.2011 passed by the first Appellate Court whereby, the appeal filed by the appellants stood dismissed. Along with the appeal, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 518 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the appellants herein issued notice No.ESTO/99/18 dated 23.12.1999 to respondent No.1 in respect of Bungalow No.126-B situated at Staff Road, Ambala Sadar, claiming that the suit property under GLR (General Land Register) Survey No.267, Ambala Cantt. was held on 'Old Grant' terms as contained in GGO (Governor Generals Order) No.179 dated 12.09.1836. It was further claimed by the appellants that respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the grant by way of unauthorized construction and by increasing the plinth area, as such, the Government was entitled to resume the suit property. Upon receiving the said notice from the appellants, respondent No.1 herein instituted a civil suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, while claiming that respondent No.1 is absolute owner of the suit property and it was never held on any terms and conditions and was never an 'Old Grant' as alleged in the impugned notice. It was stated that respondent No.1 purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration from R.B. Vishan Bhagwan vide registered sale deed dated 24.09.1969 free from all encumbrances. It was averred that the suit property was never subjected to alleged GGO No.179 dated 12.09.1836 and even the predecessor of respondent No.1 held the suit property free from all encumbrances. It was pointed out that respondent No.1 even applied for mutation of the suit property and the same had been mutated in the name of respondent No.1. It was submitted that respondent No.1, after purchasing the suit property, constructed 63 shops and 08 halls and the Municipal Counsel is charging house tax over the same.

(3.) It was submitted that the Estate Officer/State of Haryana has no right to resume the suit property, as the same is not an 'Old Grant'. It was averred that the suit property was earlier situated in the area of Ambala Cantonment and was alleged to have been excluded from Cantonment Area and handed over to the State of Haryana vide a unilateral letter issued by the Central Government, which is now alleged to be an Excision Agreement. The alleged transfer was subjected to certain terms and conditions and the same does not confer any proprietorship on State of Haryana. It was stated that even in the alleged GLR, referred to by the appellants in the notice, the Union of India has been shown to be landlord and the name of State of Haryana does not figure anywhere. The Government of Haryana has no right, title or interest in the suit property and it was never held under GGO No.179 dated 12.09.1836. In fact, GGO No.179 dated 12.09.1836 was not even applicable to the Ambala Cantonment and the Ambala Cantonment was never a station of the Bengal Army. The Government of Haryana or the Estate Officer does not possess any right to resume the suit property by giving one month's notice. It was averred that the alleged GLR was prepared simply on assumptions, conjectures and surmises after 103 years of the establishment of Ambala Cantonment. It was submitted that the Cantonment Magistrate/M.E.O (Military Estate Officer) office illegally forced the various owners of the properties to give admission deeds in their favour, which was against Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925, thus, the admission deeds were obtained under coercion and pressure. It was claimed that the alleged GLR is not a complete and legal document, as number of columns in it are lying vacant and the same was prepared at the back of owners of the properties. No resumption can be made without prior approval of Defence Minister of the Central Government. It was stated that no defence purpose or public purpose has been mentioned in the impugned notice. In the excised area of Ambala Sadar only Haryana Municipal Act is applicable, in which there is no provision for resumption. It was submitted that no details of alleged illegal construction, enlargement of plinth area or change of purpose have been mentioned in the impugned resumption notice. It was further averred by respondent No.1 in the plaint that as per GGO order dated 12.09.1836, the power of resumption under clause (6) is applicable only to properties, in respect of which 'Grants' have been made and registered under clause (5). A property which is not subject matter of a 'Grant' registered under clause (5) cannot, therefore, be resumed under clause (6). The existence of a registered grant and proof thereof, is thus a mandatory pre-condition for the availability and exercise of the power of resumption under the Governor's General Order dated 12.09.1836. In the civil suit, exhaustive grounds were taken for setting aside the impugned notice.