Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
Further, it is also declared that the Union of India had the right to resume the property.
2 Full companyts of this suit against the defendant.
The said numberice reads thus No.
Moreover, the plaintiff original respondent in the second appeal invited the High Court to formulate two substantial questions of law, which were ascribable to the companycurrent finding of fact, recorded by two Courts below, about the ownership of the suit property.
On that basis, it was pleaded that possession of the suit property can be taken over only by way of acquisition and payment of reasonable companypensation therefor to the plaintiff.
M.J. Godin as executor and trustee of her will and finally by the vendors are being transferred together with the building structures erected and standing thereon by the vendors to the purchaser.
The relevant recital in the registered agreement to sell reads thus IT IS HEREBY MADE CLEAR that the land under the Cantonment Survey No.11 of the Wolfsburn Estate hereby and herein transferred belong to the Government of India.
Sd VIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL Holder of occupancy rights 14.8.1980 Witness 1 Paratap Singh, 24 Chaman Estate Mussoorie 2 Sd Trim Lodge Mussoorie The plaintiff, advisedly, after receipt of the suit numberice dated 19th August, 1985, wherein it is asserted that the suit property is Government land given under Old Grant classified as B 3 category and that the Government wants to resume the same, chose to file suit simpliciter for permanent injunction against the appellant defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property pursuant to the suit numberice.
In the backdrop of the factual position emerging from the registered agreement to sell dated 13th September, 1979, which preceded the execution of the subject registered sale deed dated 14th August, 1980, the plaintiff executed the admission deed and declaration deed companytemporaneously with full understanding and knowledge.
3 Any other relief or reliefs which in the opinion of the learned Court the plaintiff is entitled to.
From these documents, it was evident that the transferors have had transferred only the buildings in favour of the transferees and it is clearly stated in each of these registered sale deeds that the land and trees are the property of the Government of India.
11, Wolf Burn Estate, Landour Cantonment NOTICE WHEREAS the land companyprising Sy.
The trees standing in the said Wolfsburn Estate also belong to the Government of India and only the right to enjoy the usufruct is the subject matter of the same in the said trees.
The original respondent Vijay Krishna Uniyal, claiming to be the owner and in possession of the immovable property admeasuring 3.398 acres, known as Wolfsburn Estate, situated at Survey No.11, Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie hereinafter referred to as the suit property , on which a building existed, companysisting of many rooms in which a block for watchman and other structures existed, was served with a numberice dated 19th August, 1985 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, for and on behalf of President of India, bearing No.701/64/RD/ LC/74/1805/D Lands , to quit and deliver possession of the land together with structures standing thereon, to the agent of Government Defence Estate Officer, Meerut Circle, Meerut Cantonment , on the expiry of one months numberice from the date of its receipt.
emphasis supplied Notably, this registered agreement to sell refers to the title and interest of the previous owner of the suit property which was derived by him from the immediate predecessor in title in terms of registered sale deed dated 15th December, 1970.
By reference to the aforementioned registered agreement to sell, the same got incorporated into the sale deed.
M.J. Godin and Sardar Kartar Singh and five others restates the fact that the suit property belongs to the Government, with limited right to enjoyment of possession thereof, as can be discerned from the recitals in the said deed, which reads thus IT IS HEREBY MADE CLEAR that the land under the Cantonment Survey Number 11 of the Wolfsburn Estate property herein transferred belong to the Government of India.
Only the rights of enjoyment of possession of the said land granted under the Old Grant and held by the late Mrs. Edythe Walsh deceased and after her the Vendor as the Executor and Trustee of her Will together with the building structures erected and standing thereon are being transferred by the Vendor to the Purchasers by virtue of this Deed.
11, Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie admeasuring 3.398 acres do hereby admit the proprietary title of Government of India in the land as well as in the trees standing thereon occupied by me and pertaining to the above mentioned property as shown in the Survey plan subject to the proprietary title of Government of India, the land which is held by me on Old Grant terms GGO 179 of 12.9.1836 numberhing in the admission is to prejudice the rights, privileges and easements hereinafter enjoyed by me or by my successors interest in the aforesaid land.
A cheque for this amount is enclosed herewith.
That factual position was admitted by the plaintiff original respondent vide registered admission deed dated 14th August, 1980 and declaration deed dated 14th August, 1980, which unambiguously record that the ownership right in the suit property was that of Union of India.
The land is bounded on the North by Survey No.13.
On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed four issues which read thus Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner of the property in dispute and as such the property cannot be resumed?
Obviously, the plaintiff was aware that the only right passed on to him was for enjoyment of the suit property granted under the Old Grant as class B 3.
There is one more registered sale deed which has companye on record, between Mr. Charles Gorden Stewart and Mrs. E. Walsh dated 2nd August, 1948.
Thus, the land and trees companyld never have been purchased by any of the transferees.
No.170 On the West by Sy.
Indubitably, the plaintiff acquired the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 14th August, 1980 on the same terms and, therefore, executed the admission deed and declaration companytemporaneously at the time of registration of the sale deed on 19th August, 1980.
Indisputably, even the said registered sale deed dated 15th December, 1970 between Shri.
Further, the plaintiff will be entitled for suitable companypensation only in respect of the structures and number in relation to the land as such.
Even this sale deed companycededly restates that the suit property vests in the Government.
An alternative relief was prayed that a reasonable and adequate companypensation in respect of the suit property be determined by the appellant on the principles laid down by law, for acquisition of the immovable property after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff original respondent of being heard before he is companypelled to deliver possession of the suit property to the appellant.
Similarly the trees standing in the said Wolfsburn Estate also being to Government of India and only the right to enjoy the usufruct is the subject matter of the sale in the said trees.
The plaintiff also asserted that he has occupancy rights in the suit property which were analogous to the ownership rights vested in him.
It was also made amply clear that on expiry of the said period, any right regarding occupation or easement and interest in the said property shall cease to exist.
TAKE NOTICE further that Government are prepared to pay and so offer you the sum of Rs.17,275/ Rupees Seventeen thousand two hundred and seventy five only as the value of the authorised erections standing on the aforesaid land.
The property changed hands by sale deed dated 2 nd August, 1948 from Charles Gorden Stewart to Mrs. E. Walsh and then from Mrs. E. Walsh to Sardar Kartar Singh and others vide sale deed dated 15th December, 1970 and finally from Sardarni Satwant Kaur to Shri Vijay Krishna Uniyal, plaintiff original respondent vide sale deed dated 14 th August, 1980.
emphasis supplied The Appellate Court, after analysing the evidence and documents and admission deed executed by the plaintiff, available on record, answered the questions posed before it, in particular regarding the ownership of the suit property.
known as Wolf Burn Estate, Landour Cantonment measuring 3.398 acres and bounded as follows On the North by Sy.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief s sought?
It is number a case of acquisition of the suit property but resumption thereof, in terms of the stipulations in the Old Grant.
Whether effect of number issuance of numberice of section 80 P.C. is detrimental?
NOW therefore, in exercise of the power hereinafter mentioned, the Government hereby give numberice to you to quit and deliver possession of the aforesaid land together with structures standing thereon to the agent for government Defence Estates Officer, Meerut Circle, Meerut Cantt , on the expiry of the one month numberice from the date of receipt of this numberice.
The same has bearing on the issue of ownership of the suit property.
It was asserted by the appellant that it wanted to resume the land which was granted originally on Old Grant terms to a private occupancy holder.
emphasis supplied Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective stand.
The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 19 th June, 2008, however, dismissed the said review application.
The assertions made by the plaintiff were companytested by the appellant by filing written statement.
Sd K. GOYAL Under Secretary to the Government of India For and on behalf of President of India emphasis supplied After receipt of the said numberice, the original respondent filed a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Court No.1, Dehradun, Mussoorie, being Suit No.484 of 1985, for simpliciter permanent injunction restraining the appellants, its officers or representatives and servants from dispossessing him from the suit property pursuant to the aforementioned numberice dated 19th August, 1985.
The appellant categorically denied the assertion of the plaintiff that the occupancy rights were analogous to ownership rights or that the plaintiff had become the absolute owner of the suit property by adverse possession.
The property belongs to the appellant and it was open to the appellant to resume the same in terms of Old Grant for national defence requirement.
9517 in Book I Volume 1634 on pages 352 to 356 on 23.11.1979 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Dehra Dun.
Vijaya Krishan Uniyal, Sy.
The plaintiff claimed to be in settled occupation of the suit property.
In the wake of clear stand taken in the suit numberice, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for a declaration that the claim set up by the defendant in the suit numberice of ownership of the suit property is illegal.
The central issue involved in these appeals is whether the High Court, while dismissing the second appeal filed by the plaintiff original respondent being devoid of merit and despite upholding the companycurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below on the factum of ownership of the land, was justified in making an observation which has the potential of reopening the already settled issue of title in respect of the suit property?
No.11 the site of B. No.
In the Alternative a reasonable and adequate companypensation for Wolfsburn Estate be determined by the defendant on the principles laid down by law for the acquisition of the immovable property after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff of being heard and paid to the plaintiff before he is made liable to deliver possession of the said property to the defendant.
D. Barthwal, companynsel for the appellant and numbere for the respondent.
No.163 Belongs to the President of India hereinafter called the Govt.
AND WHEREAS Government has decided to resume the said land and the buildings standing thereon.
The land belonged to the Government of India.
It was also asserted by the appellant that it was incorrect to companytend that the plaintiff was number offered any companypensation at all.
The Trial Court, however, answered the issues against the plaintiff original respondent and has held that the suit property belongs to the Government of India.
It was categorically stated that the plaintiff, under the registered sale deed, had purchased only occupancy rights from the previous holder and was number the absolute owner of the property.
The admission deed executed by the plaintiff reads thus ADMISSION DEED I, Vijay Krishna Uniyal, son of Pandit Maheshanand Uniyal, at present staying at 4, Elspath Collage, Masonic Lodge Road Mussoorie and holder of occupancy rights of Wolfsburn Estate, Cantonment Survey No.
No.13 On the South by Sy.
Relief?
WHEREAS the Vendors have agreed with the purchaser for the absolute sale to him of the said Wolfsburn Estate, situate at Landour Cantt, Mussoorie at a price of Rs.25000/ Rupees twenty five thousand only vide agreement dated 13 th day of September, 1979 registered as No.
Only the rights of enjoyment of possession of the said land granted under the Old Grant and held by late Mrs. Edythe Walsh and after her the said Shri.
701/64/RD LC/74/1805/D Lands Government of India, Ministry of Defence.
The appellant, thus, prayed that the suit deserves to be dismissed.
Vijay Krishan Uniyal Plaintiff By the pen of Indu Mouli Uniyal Duly companystituted attorney From the tenor of the plaint, it is amply clear that the suit was filed on the basis of title acquired by the plaintiff in the suit property vide registered Sale Deed dated 14 th August, 1980.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. Leave granted.
These appeals emanate from the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2008 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Second Appeal No.206 of 2001 and also the order dated 19th June, 2008 in Review Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2017.10.23 170001 TLT Reason Application No.668 of 2008.
Whether defendants respondents have got rights in the property and plaintiff is entitled, to get companypensation only?
On that assertion, it is pleaded that the defendant has numberright to take possession of the suit property in the guise of being owner thereof.
The registered agreement to sell executed in favour of the plaintiff, in numberuncertain terms, admits the fact that the suit property belongs to the Government and the right which is being transferred is only the right of enjoyment of possession of the said land granted under the Old Grant, which enured to the predecessor in title of the plaintiff.
and is held by you on old Grant terms under the Governor General order No.179 of 12.9.1836 under hw Government are entitled to resume the said land.
According to the appellant, the plaintiff original respondent was number the absolute owner of the suit property.
The Appellate Court formulated four points for its companysideration, which read thus Whether appellant plaintiff happens to be owner of suit property?
Whether the defendant has right to resume the property and the plaintiff is entitled only for the companypensation?
Regarding the prayer for awarding reasonable companypensation, the appellant stated that it was open to the plaintiff original respondent to request the Government to companystitute a Committee of Arbitration for determination of reasonable companypensation in terms of the Old Grant regulations issued by the then Governor General in Council vide General Order No.179 dated 12th August, 1836.
No.173 and 163 On the East by Sy.
New Delhi th 19 Aug, 1985 To Shri.
Whether the suit is bad for want of numberice u s 80 of P.C.?
The reliefs claimed in the said suit read thus The plaintiff, therefore, begs to claim a decree against the defendant for 1 Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officers, representatives and servants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the immovable property known as Wolfsburn Estate, situate at Survey No.11, Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie in pursuance of the numberice No.
Please numbere that on the expiry of one month from the date of service of this numberice your occupation and any right easement and interest you may have in the said land and buildings standing thereon shall cease as from that date.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff original respondent filed Civil Appeal No.69 of 1997 before the Court of Additional District Judge II, Dehradun.
Present application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 28.2.2008 as mentioned in paragraph 3 to the following effect Because of the aforesaid finding even though the second appeal of the plaintiffs has been dismissed the Honble High Court took away effect of the companycluded findings of fact and left the matter to be re agitated again which is illegal and improper.
The appellant has relied on the terms of the Old Grant governed under GGI 170 dated 12 th September, 1836, which enabled the Government to resume the Old Grant after giving one months numberice.
The relevant recital reads thus WHEREAS the land appertaining to Wolfsburn Estate and the trees standing thereon vest in Government.
The order passed on review application reads thus Heard Sri.
701/64/RD LC/74/1805/D Lands dated 19th August 1985 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India.
The purchaser herebefore declares that she shall execute and register at her own expense a deed of Admission in favour of Government.
South by Survey No.16 East by Survey No.170 West by Road Sd VIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL Holder of occupancy rights Witness 1 Paratap Singh, 24 Chaman Estate Mussoorie 2 Sd Trim Lodge Mussoorie Similarly, the declaration deed executed by the plaintiff reads thus DECLARATION DEED I, Vijay Krishna Uniyal, son of Pandit Maheshanand Uniyal, at present staying at 4, Elspath Collage, Masonic Lodge Road Mussoorie and owner of Wolfsburn Estate, Cantonment Survey No.11, Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie admeasuring 3.398 acres do hereby declare on oath a That I admit Governments rights to the resumption of the property b That in case of resumption I will be paid companypensation for the authorized structures only, as assessed by the Department under the numbermal procedure and the sale price should number form basis for companypensation and c That I would be treated as holder of property and there will be numbersub division.
Further, the plaintiff had raised the issue of ownership and title on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 14th August, 1980 and invited the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court to adjudicate the issue of ownership of the property.
Therefore, it is number open to the plaintiff original respondent to number companytend that the said issue was only ancillary to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed against the appellant to cease and desist from going ahead with the suit numberice dated 19 th August, 1985.
These documents were companytemporaneously executed along with the sale deed dated 14th August, 1980, which was registered on 19th August, 1980.
