TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re consisting of main bungalow, servant quarter and garage situated at Elphinstone Road, Pune Cantonment, Pune (hereinafter referred as the "suit premises"). 3. The case of the Appellants is that the suit premises as aforesaid belongs to the Appellants - "Pune Cantonment Board". The Governor-General by its order No. 14(G.G.O.-14) dated 6th January, 1827 intimated that officers not provided with public quarters may receive permission to erect houses within fortress or military cantonment conferring on them right of property whatever in the ground allotted to them for that purpose, which will continue to be the property of the State, and resumable at the pleasure of the Government. The plot admeasuring 0.90 acres (suit premises) in question was initially granted to one Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria who erected superstructure, including the Bungalow in question. In the year 1891 he bequeathed the suit bungalow No. 1A, Elphinstone Road to his son Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria. The name of Maneckhji Nusserwanji was registered in General Land Register. Therein it was mentioned that the bungalow in question is held under old grant under conditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January, 1827.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce from its Ministry of Defence being Notice No. 701/27/L/L&C/71/3606/D(Lands) dated 11th June, 1971 to Plaintiffs-Respondents intimating the intention to resume the suit premises and also informed that the Appellants are ready to pay a compensation of Rs. 31,537/- as the value of the authorized erection made on the said land. The Plaintiffs-Respondents were informed that in case the amount of compensation offered is not acceptable to them, the committee of Arbitration will be convened to assess the value of the authorized erection on the land. The cheque for the said amount was attached with the aforesaid notice. The symbolic possession of the bungalow in question was taken on 12th July, 1971. 8. After about two years, the Respondent filed Special Civil Application No. 1536/1973 challenging the resumption notice dated 11th June, 1971. Some other individuals who erected bungalows on similarly situated lands which were also resumed, also filed similar special civil applications including Special Civil Application No. 1286 of 1972, etc.. 9. By judgment and order dated 5th February, 1979, the Bombay High Court allowed the Special Civil Application No. 1286/1972 being Phiroze Tem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bombay High Court were called for by this Court on the ground that they were interconnected. As a result appeals covered by SCA No. 1286/72, SCA No. 1486/72, SCA No. 1487/72, SCA No. 1484/72, SCA No. 1485/72 got transferred to this Court and numbered as Transferred Case Nos. 67 to 72 of 1985 and 11 & 12 of 1987. 15. Transferred Case Nos. 67 to 72 of 1985 and 11 and 12 of 1987 titled Union of India and Ors. v. P.T. Ankleshwar (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. on hearing were remitted back to the High Court for disposal by this Court on 20th July, 1988, with the following directions: 1. While considering the merit of the case, the High Court shall not place any reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of the High Court consisting of D.H. Rege and R.A. Jahangir, JJ. rendered in Special Civil Application No. 1286/72 decided on 6/6 February, 1979 against which appeals are pending in this Court. 2. While considering the case, if the High Court finds that the trial court or the first appellate court has placed reliance or made any reference to the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, it shall ignore that judgment, to that extent, and the High Court shall decide the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed: Learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India would seek dispossession of the Respondent occupants from the properties involved in accordance with law and if need be, through a Civil Court by filing suits. In case such steps are taken, any observations made by the High Court which would stand to defeat the remedies sought would not stand in its way. On such stance of the Union of India, Civil Appeals as also the special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 21. The Plaintiffs-Respondents thereafter filed suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages against the Defendants-Appellants in the Small Causes Court at Pune numbered as Civil Suit No. 695 of 1999. It was contended therein that the Defendants-Appellants served resumption notice upon the Plaintiffs-Respondents which was challenged by the Plaintiffs-Respondents before the Bombay High Court in SCA No. 1536 of 1973 which was allowed and the resumption notice was declared void, inoperative and without legal effect. The said order of the High Court was affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 613 of 1980. The Appellants filed review application and the same was disposed of recording the statement of lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was held that in view of sale deed dated 12th November, 1968 in favour of the Maneckji Ankesaria, the consent letter dated 19th December, 1967 and the lease agreement dated 29th August, 1941 the Plaintiffs were only holders of occupancy rights in respect of the land and were owners of the superstructure. The Defendants were tenants and hence the suit was between the landlord and the tenant and the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the same. 24.2 The issue No. 3 was answered in negative with observation that the Defendants have legal right of resumption. Mere exercise of such right does not mean that the Defendants have denied the lease hold right over the land and ownership of the superstructure of the Plaintiff. 24.3 Issue No. 5 regarding the Defendants being in arrears of rent since 17th July, 1979 to 30th June, 1999 @ Rs. 196/- per month was answered in negative with the observation that there was no willful default on part of the Defendants and the Defendants have deposited arrears of rent along with interest there on @ Rs. 9% per annum before the date of hearing of the suit. Thus, Defendants are entitled to protections of eviction as per t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatute or Common Law. (iv) The possession of the house was taken by the Appellant-Union of India from the Plaintiffs-Respondents in due course of law and that the Plaintiffs-Respondents was not entitled to any remedy against the Government either by way of a writ petition or a suit or Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (v) Clause 4 of the Repairing Lease Deed dated 29.08.1941 even protects the Government's right of resumption and therefore, the Plaintiffs-Respondents cannot derive advantage of the Repairing Lease Deed for claiming right or title over the suit premises. (vi) In view of the Section 3 of the Government Grants act, 1895, the Bombay Rent Control Act will not be applicable in absence of landlord-tenant relationship, the land being in the nature of a Government grant over which the super-structure was constructed. (vii) No right has been vested or granted in the repair lease to the occupant to evict the owner of the land who in this case incidentally proceeded to become the occupant of the super-structure put up by the Plaintiffs-Respondents. That will not create any legal landlord-tenant relationship as in other cases as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Anklesaria to the Military Estates Officer, Poona Cantonment, Poona shows that permission for sale of property bearing No. 1A, Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona was sought for by Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria and two others as they wanted to sell of their right, title and interest in the property to Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others as a part of settlement of the family dispute. Permission was also sought for to complete the said transaction with clear assurance that Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others in whose favour the rights are sought to be sold are ready to execute such document in favour of the State as may be required under the existing rules. 32. The Military Estates Officer, Poona Circle in reference to above letter dated 19th December, 1967 informed Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria that sanction was accorded to the transfer by sale of the above bungalow to Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and Ors. and ask them to comply with certain instructions, as evident from the said letter, is quoted below: No. H/517 Office of the Mily. Estates Officer, Poone Circle, Poona-1, 25 June, 1968. To, Maneckji Nassurwanji ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nestone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona 1 and which property is more described in the Schedule "A" hereunder written...................................the vendors agreed to sell and the purchaser agreed to purchase all the leasehold rights being perpetual grant under the old grant of the Poona Cantonment Board in all that piece and parcel of the land situated within the Registration District of Poona and Registration Sub-District of Taluka Haveli and situated within the limits of the Poona Cantonment Board and within the Revenue limits of Taluka Poona City and bearing Poona Cantonment No. 1-A, Elphinestone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona-1 and bearing G.L.R. and Survey No. 258 and bearing Military Estate House No. 517 along with the full rights of ownership of all buildings out - houses, structures, appurtenances and benefits of all amenities belonging to or available to the said property and which property is more fully described in the Schedule 'A' hereunder written, free from all encumbrances, charges, burdens.... 34. Thereafter, Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria purchaser of the bungalow No. 1A, Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment signed admission certificate dated 19th April, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona belongs to the Appellant. The said land was leased by way of grant originally to Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria under conditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January, 1827. The super structure including bungalow, garage and servant quarter on the plot was constructed by him. In the year 1891, the super structure bequeathed to his son-Maneckhji Nusserwanji. Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria and two others sold their right, title and interest over the super structure i.e. bungalow No. 1A in favour of Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others (nephews of Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria). Thereby file of the super structure was transferred in favour of Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others but the title of the land remained with the Appellant. 36. This is also evident from General Land Register-Cantonment 8-A(1) dated 7th March, 2007 and relevant portion of which is as follows: 37. The Government of India from Ministry of Defence by notice dated 11th June, 1971 intimated Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others that the land belongs to the President of India i.e. the Government and is held on Old Grant terms under which the Governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 555, this Court has held that the grantee under the old grant terms is a mere occupier/licensee having no title over the land so as to entitle him to transfer the land or to another person without prior consent of the authorities concerned. The Court further held that the Regulations as well as the General Land Register which are old documents maintained in the regular course and coming from proper custody clearly indicate that the land was held on old grant basis and this was sufficient for the Government to resume the land in accordance with law. 42. In Union of India and Ors. v. Kamla Verma (2010) 13 SCC 511, this Court has held that it is always open to the Union of India to resume the land held on old grant terms and that the Union of India cannot be prevented from resuming the said land. 43. Therefore, it is clear that the Government has unfettered discretion and Under Section 3 impose any condition, limitation or restriction in its grants and the rights, privileges and obligations of the grantee would be regulated only according to the terms of the grant itself though they may be inconsistent with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 years. After the expiry of the said period the Defendants continued to be in use and occupation of the said property as at tenant holding over on the same terms and conditions as a monthly tenant. Thus the Defendants are occupying the said property as a statutory tenant only. 48. The Plaintiffs-Respondents also misled the Court by stating that the resumption notice dated 11th June, 1971 was set aside by the Bombay High Court and the said order has attained finality. 49. In fact the judgment aforesaid on challenge before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 613 of 1980, heard along with other appeals, this Court by order dated 4th August, 1998 made the following observation: Order Learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India would seek dispossession of the Respondent-occupants from the properties involved in accordance with law and if need be, through a Civil Court by filing suits. In case such steps are taken, any observations made by the High Court which would stand to defeat the remedies sought would not stand in its way. On such stance of the Union of India, Civil Appeals as also the special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 50. The libe....