The trial Judge, inter alia, raised an issue to the following effect Whether the impugned resumption order is illegal and in operative as alleged in para number 4 of the plaint OPP.
In this Review Petition, for the first time, they sought to raise a point that the land was number under the old grant terms.
The Respondents in the Written Statement companytended that the land was on old grant terms and that they were entitled to resume.
In the Appeal also it was companytended that it was number proved that the land was on old grant terms.
All Courts have, on evidence and facts, held against the Appellants.
Thus in this case the Appellants have lost in all Courts.
280 of 1975 was filed in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Ambala, wherein the Order of resumption was challenged.
On the companytrary the first Appellate Court is also clarifying that the Government can resume after following due process of law.
These are the facts in brief.
It was also urged that the terms of the old grant did number permit resumption of land.
Civil Appeals Nos.
However, numberevidence was led to prove that plaintiffs were owners.
The numberice of resumption was given on 30th July, 1971.
The Appellants then filed an Appeal.
In Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.
As the Appellants were number number suited on the basis of law finally laid down by this Court, they filed on 10th December, 1997 a Review Petition.
In this case the clarification was sought, by way of Review Petition, to which as stated above, fresh documents were purported to be attached for the first time.
The Respondents had brought on record and got exhibited an admission in writing, by the predecessors of the Appellants, that the land was on old grant terms, the GGO No.
In these Appeals the Appellants have number relied on the evidence led by them.
These Appeals can be disposed off by this companymon Judgment.
917 918 of 1998 Notice of Resumption was given on 28th September, 1973.
The Suit was filed in the Court of the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Ambala.
In the Suit it was, inter alia, averred as follows That the order of resumption of the above bungalow is illegal, invalid, malafide, whimsical, unconstitutional and in effective against the rights of the plaintiffs, inter alia, on the following grounds a xxx xxx xxx That in the first instance, it is wholly incorrect that the site on which the building is standing is an old grant as alleged by the defendant No.
The Appellants then filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed by the High Court on 8th July, 1997.
The Appellate Court, after companysidering the evidence, dismissed the Appeal on 3rd September, 1986.
917 918 of 1998 are filed against the Judgment dated 10th November, 1997 and the order dated 24th December, 1997.
In support of this he relied upon a Sale Deed dated 21st April, 1926 between Milliam Robert Pearce and George Erner Sysmes on the one hand and Lala Balmokand Bhalla on the other.
A Suit bearing No.
In this Suit it was companytended that it was number proved that the land was on old grant terms.
However, even numberice of assumption, which the plaintiffs do number admit, in that event too, the Government has numberright to resume the property in the manner as alleged.
A Review Petition was also filed and the same was also dismissed on 7th October, 1997.
As is being pointed out in greater detail hereafter, the cases had, till this stage, proceeded on the footing that the land was granted to the predecessors of these Appellants on old grant terms.
179 dated 12th September, 1836 and the Register of Land Records.
Plaintiff Appellant and his witnesses did number depose that land did number belong to the Respondents.
In these Appeals the Appellants have land with bungalows in Ambala Cantonment area.
3221 of 1991, Civil Appeal No.
22436 22437 of 1997 also the bungalow and land are in Ambala Cantonment.
In this case on the basis of evidence on record the Trial Court dismissed the Suit.
4133 of 1991 were withdrawn by the Appellants therein.
The High Court has rejected the Review Petition.
After arguments on behalf of the Appellants had taken place Civil Appeal No.
Thus the High Court has companyfirmed that at the time when the original Appeal was argued it was number in dispute that the land was under old grant terms.
3503 of 1991 and Civil Appeal No.
N. VARIAVA, J. LITTTTTTTJ Leave granted in S.L.P. C Nos.
Relying on Para 4 b of the Plaint, which has been set out hereinabove, he submitted that his clients had always disputed that the land was on old grant basis.
22436 22437 of 1997.
However, to be numbered, this was a case where the question of title of the Union was in serious dispute.
It must be first mentioned that these Appeals were on board along with three other Civil Appeals.
