DURGA DASS SUD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Durga Dass and another. There is a house property known as "Handley Cross Estate" (Survey No. 114) situate in Kasauli Cantonment. This property was originally known as "Dovedell" estate No. U 21 and it was purchased by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners on 18th July, 1919 for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- vide a sale deed (Annexure A). The present value of the house is stated to be not less than Rs. 75,000/- and the rental value of the same is Rs. 4,422/per- annum. Under the Army regulations, any land in the Cantonment under the structures had vested in the cantonment or the Government and the structures remained in the ownership of the person who had constructed the same. The site under the land, therefore, was in a way given in grant to the person who had constructed the structure thereon and the Government had reserved to itself the right to resume the grant at any time.

(2.) It is stated that in 1949, the Military Estate Officer. Delhi Circle. Delhi Cantonment, issued a notice dated 30th April 1949, to the petitioners stating that the Government had decided to resume possession of the land under the said property. The petitioners were required to quit and deliver possession of the property on 1st June 1949 and offered a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on account of the cost of the authorized structures standing on the said land. The said order purported to have been issued under the Bengal Army Regulations. Governor General's Order No. 179, dated 12th September. 1836 and subsequent orders. This action of the authorities was challenged by the petitioners by filing a suit in the Court of the District Judge. Fagehgarh Sahib at Bassi (Pepsu). The suit was contested by respondent No. 1 but the trial Court vide its judgment, dated 30th November 1953, came to the conclusion that the action of respondent No. 1 was wholly illegal. Though the plaintiffs in that suit contended that a sum of Rupees 50,000/was payable to them as compensation but no final decision was given since the Court came to the conclusion that the notice served on the plaintiffs was defective. The decision as to quantum of compensation was challenged in the High Court of Punjab by the present petitioners and the Division Bench, vide its Judgment. D/28- 8-1958, in RFA No. 12-p of 1954. (Punj) came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to record any finding on the quantum of compensation. After the said litigation between the parties wherein it was held that the resumption was not proper, the petitioners continued to be the owners of the suit property known as "Handley Cross Estate" and were entitled to continue to receive the sum of Rs. 1,881/4/- per annum as rent for the use and occupation of the property.

(3.) On 6th November 1969, a notice (Annexure E) was issued in the names of the petitioners and their deceased father, late Shri Jagadhar Mull. It was mentioned therein that the land comprising the site of the property known as "Handley Cross Estate" measuring 0.97 acre belongs to the Government of India and is held by the addressees on the 'old grant' terms (Governor General's Order No. 179, dated the 12th September 1836) under which the Government is entitled to resume the said land. The petitioners were required to deliver possession on 22nd December 1969 at 11.00 hours to respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 as agents of respondent No. 1. It was further stated that in case the addressees of the notice failed to do so all their rights of easements and interests in the said land and buildings thereon shall cease from that date and respondent No. 1 will resume possession of the said property under all powers enabling them to resume possession.