PHULWASI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing of a notice (Annexure 1) dated 27th of July, 1971, from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, to the petitioner informing the petitioner that on the expiry of one month from the date of service of the notice any rights easements and interests which the petitioner may have in the land described at the foot of the notice and buildings standing thereon shall cease from that date and also stating that the Government were prepared to pay and so offered to the petitioner a sum of Rupees 4469 as the value of the authorised erec- tions standing on the said land. A cheque for the said amount was attached with the said notice.

(2.) The land mentioned in the said notice (Annexure 1), namely, survey No. 77 (Bungalow No. 9 Mango Lodge) in Dinapore Cantonment measuring 1.170 acres described in the notice as belonging to the President of India and held by the petitioner on old grant terms as contained in Governor-General's Order No. 179 dated 12th of September, 1836, according to the petitioner, belonged to one Samuel Grose, son of William Gross of Dinapore Cantonment. Samuel Grose sold the bungalow in question to Mool Chand under a registered deed of sale dated 20th of March, 1905 for a consideration of Rs. 1300. Mool Chand died in the year 1926 and after his death under a deed of partition dated 24th of July, 1931 in between his sons, Sarab Lal and Parmanand, the bungalow in question was exclusively allotted to Sarab Lal. Sarab Lal died on 27th of February, 1961 end on his death, the petitioner, who is his widow, became the owner of the bungalow. The bungalow was let out to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, on a month to month tenancy for accommodating the local military officers at the rate of Rs. 85 per month by Sarab Lal in the year 1947. Since after the death of Sarab Lal the petitioner was being paid the rent of the same. On 28th of July, 1971, the notice (Annexure 1) was received by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that she is a lessee of the land in question and not a mere licensee and she cannot be dispossessed in the way sought to be done by the said notice.

(3.) The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is a mere licensee and not a lessee as per old grant terms of 1836 on the basis of which her predecessors-in-interest was allowed to enter upon the land. Respondent No. 1, the Union of India, is entitled to take possession of the land together with bungalow thereon after paying to the petitioner the amount offered for the bungalow. It is further case of the respondents that the petitioner has got no interest in the land.