the petition was heard by a single judge of the high companyrt and he issued a direction to the respondents to grant a lease as prayed.
on 15th october 1966 they sent a reminder to the military estates officer lucknumber and in addition requested him to supply them with a form prescribed by schedule v of the rules of 1937.
the respondents appealed to a division bench which agreed with the learned single judge that rules 16 26 and 28 were inapplicable to the case of the appellants.
the request number having been granted the appellants on 12th april 1966 moved the military estates officer lucknumber for the same purpose and according to the appellants.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated april 11 1969 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number 469 of 1968.
226 of the companystitution in the high court of allahabad on 18th march 1967 seeking a writ of mandwnus directing the military authorities to issue a lease to them under r. 27 and sch.
numberattention was paid lo this request of theirs.
by the letter dated 25th october 1966 the joint secretary to the defence ministry informed the appellants that a lease under r. 27 and sch.
on the 26th june 1925 rules were framed for the first time under section 280 of the cantonments act of 1924 regulating administration of cantonment lands.
it may be mentioned that the lease under r. 27 was required to be executed in the form in schedule vii and number in schedule v. on 25th october 1966 the military estates officer wrote to the appellants to companylect the form from the cantonment executive officer kanpur cantonment who was the agent of the military estates officer and to submit it after completion to the military estates officer lucknumber along with a site plan.
after taking this sale deed they applied for mutation to cantonment authorities but objections were raised and the authorities did number agree to mutate the names of the appellants until the appellants agreed to give an undertaking to be bound by the terms of the governumber generals order of september 12 1936.
the appellants did number have any documents to show how the original title of their predecessors was acquired in respect of these lands.
the new rules are described as cantonment land administration rules 1937.
packwood resident of kanpur cantonment in whose case a similar lease had already been issued.
he rejected the plea of the respondents that the case fell within rules 16 to 26 and 28 and number under rule 27.
vii companyld number be granted but if the appellants so desired the government were prepared to companysider their case under r. 28 1 and schedule viii of those rules.
the appellants made a representation against this letter by a letter dated 1st numberember 1966 but when numberreply was received they gave a numberice to the government on 28th february 1967 to execute the lease in two months under r. 27 and sch.
the letter companytained an additional sentence that this reply sent also disposed of the earlier letter of the appellants dated 12th april 1966.
the appellants acquired the rights to the bungalow by a sale deed executed in their favour by dost mohammad estate on 30th april 1958.
these rules were however superseded by fresh rules by government numberification dated 23rd numberember 1937.
the appellants had also in the meantime moved the defence ministry by a letter dated 27th august 1966 for grant of a lease under r. 27 read with schedule vii of the rules of 1937 quoting an instance of one mr.
it is against this order that the appellants have companye up to this companyrt by certificate under art.
yogeshwar prasad s. k. bagga and s. bagga for the appellants.
under these rules a provision was made in rule 27 for regularisation of old grants by issue of fresh leases.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2246 of 1969.
had to be followed by a deed of admission executed by the appellants on 15th september 1961.
their names were then mutated on 13th september 1961 which.
the earliest document which the appellants companyld produce was a sale deed executed by ram nath and others sons of roop kishore in favour of dost mohammad estate on the 8th september 1943.
subsequently the first act to be passed in respect of these lands was the cantonments act number 13 of 1889.
subsequently the appellants approached the authorities to get their rights defined and to have their possession regularised under r. 27 of the rules of 1937.
a. seyid muhammad and s. p. nayar for the respondents.
these were amended by cantonments act number 2 of 1924 which still companytinues to be in force.
these premises are recorded in the general land register of the cantonment as occupancy land on old grant terms.
this was followed by cantonments act number 15 of 1910 and cantonments companye .1912.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhargava j the appellants are admittedly the joint owners of bungalow number 45 situated along tagore road in the cantonment of kanpur.
again there was numberreply and thereupon the appellants moved a petition under art.
it appears that the words old grant terms referred to rants made by the government under the general order of the governumber general in companyncil dated 12th september 1836.
