ESTATE OFFICER Vs. AMRINDER SINGH

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 28.08.2009 passed by the lower court, decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs (henceforth called 'the respondents ') 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 513 days in filing the appeal.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the appellants herein issued notice No.ESTO/99/11 dated 23.12.1999 to the respondents in respect of Kothi No.123-B situated on Staff Road/Lawrence Road, Ambala Saddar, Ambala Cantt. 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 the respondents have 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, the respondents herein instituted a civil suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, while claiming that the respondents are owners of the suit property, which was purchased by Her Highness Florance Gretude, Maharani of Patiala vide conveyance deed dated 10.10.1894, on the basis of which she became absolute owner of the same without any let and hindrance of anybody including the Govt. of India and after her death, His Highness Maharaja Yadwinder Singh became its absolute owner. It was averred that the suit property was never held on any terms and conditions and was never an 'Old Grant ' as claimed by the appellants.

(3.) In the civil suit, exhaustive grounds were taken for setting aside the notice. It was further submitted by the respondents that the impugned notice was liable to be declared illegal, unauthorized etc. as the Estate Officer, Excised Area, Ambala Sadar had no valid authority to issue it, as it could not be issued without the permission of the Defence Minister, as per the rules and regulations of the Cantonment Code, Leases and Old Grants. It was further alleged that the Central Government never delegated the powers to the Haryana Government to act under GGO No.179 of 1836 nor would any such powers be even exercised by the Haryana Government or its officers. The Haryana Government is not the owner of the suit property. There was no 'Old Grant ' and its copy was never supplied to them with the notice. It was pleaded that the alleged 'Old Grant ' as sought to be relied upon by the government was not signed either by the Maharaja of Patiala, Maharani of Patiala or the original owner. It was claimed that there is no change of purpose or unauthorized construction and plinth area was never increased. The N.A.C., Ambala Sadar, Municipal Committee, Ambala Sadar sanctioned mutation in the name of the respondents, which shows that they are the absolute owners of the suit property. It was stated that the alleged GLR record of the appellants is not valid, authentic or correct and is, therefore, not binding on the respondents. It was claimed that neither the Central Government nor the State of Haryana have been shown as owners in any authenticated record nor the conditions of the Excise Agreement dated 05.02.1977 have not been fulfilled by the Haryana Government.