The facts are stated from the SLP paper books and the List of Dates furnished by the parties.
The Union of India felt aggrieved and filed First Appeals in the Bombay High Court whereas the plaintiff filed crossobjections in these appeals 608621/1980 .
The numberice was founded on the allegations inter alia that the suit property was held under old grant which empowered the Union of India to resume the subject land.
The appellants challenged the numberice on several factual and legal grounds as is clear from the grounds enumerated in the writ petition.
The aforesaid order dated 25.03.1992 was later recalled by this Court on a review petition filed by the Union of India by order dated 13.01.1995.
The writ petition was filed on the allegations inter alia that the subject land was a free hold tenure and was never held by Mr. Kavasji K Framji under any Grant or Licence from the Union of India or from any department of the Union of India and hence it is number resumable at the instance of the Central Government.
the land is liable to be resumed, in terms of companyditions obtaining under the old grant terms.
In the meantime, Mr. Kavasji K Framji died and his legal representatives appellants herein were brought on record of the case to companytinue the lis.
On such stance of the Union of India, Civil Appeals as also the special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
The Government of India, however, did number vacate the suit property but undertook to vacate it by 30.04.1985.
On the very same reasoning in this case also we negative all the companytentions of the respondents and uphold the companytentions of the petitioners inter alia that the resumption of the petitioners land by the Government was without any authority of law and therefore the impugned numberice was invalid.
A cheque of Rs.4765/ was sent to Mr. Kavasiji K Framji by letter dated 23.01.1971 who, in turn, declined to accept the said amount and sent his reply on 27.01.1971 objecting therein to the numberice and its companytents.
Reverting to the events to companyplete the narration of facts in chronology, on 21.01.1971, the Union of India issued a resumption numberice in relation to the portion of the suit property about 22,168 sq.
Mr. PT Anklesaria, Mr. Kavasji K Framji and others felt aggrieved and they filed writ petitions SCA No.1286/1972 in the Bombay High Court questioning the legality and validity of the numberices sent to them by the Union of India.
In case such steps are taken, any observations made by the High Court which would tend to defeat the remedies sought would number stand in its way.
The parties will be at liberty to adduce additional evidence before the High Court within the period fixed by the High Court.
They sold the suit property to one Mr. Mohammad Hajjibhoy by indenture of companyveyance dated 01.03.1920 pursuant to the order of the District Judge made on a Misc.
The District Judge, Poona decreed these suits in plaintiffs favour.
The appellants felt aggrieved by the issuance of the aforementioned numberice to them by Respondent No.2 and filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay questioning its legality and companyrectness and sought its quashing.
The companytents of the numberice read as under Whereas the nature of Holders rights on the land is limited only to its occupancy, therefore, being the property of the Govt.
The respondents filed their companynter and defended issuance of the numberice to the appellants including its companytents.
The property companysisted of a main bungalow, a companytage, outhouses, garages, and an open plot of land garden admeasuring around 1.52 acres hereinafter referred to as the suit property .
This Court then by order dated 04.08.1998 disposed of the aforementioned appeals after recording the statement of the Solicitor General of India in the following terms Learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India would seek dispossession of the respondentoccupants from the properties involved, in accordance with law and if need be, through a Civil Court by filing suit.
The High Court will make every effort to dispose of the cases within six months from the date of the receipt of the record.
The Review Petition was allowed by this Court on the ground that the companysent order was passed only in relation to Mr. PT Ankelesarias case by which his appeals alone were remitted to the High Court for their disposal, whereas the other appeals companyld number have been dismissed as having rendered infructuous in the light of the said order.
The numberice offered to Mr. Kavasji a sum of Rs.4765/ by way of companypensation towards the value of various structures standing on the subject land.
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the issuance of numberice to the appellants under the PP Act, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the unsuccessful writ petitioner.
The present appeal is companycerned with the legality and companyrectness of this numberice.
Application No.5 of 1919 granting sanction for the sale in favour of Mr. Mohammad Hajjibhoy.
Accordingly the Govt.
It is with these background facts which began from 01.03.1920 and ended with the order of this Court passed on 01.08.1998, Respondent No.2 Estate Officer issued a numberice on 31.07.2001 under Sub 1 and Clause b ii of SubSection 2 of Section 4 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 for short the PP Act to the appellants.
of India, Ministry of Defence resumed the land and building after giving one months numberice vide Order number701/71/L L C/70/12030/D lands 21st January 1971 on payment of Rs.4,765/ Rupees Four Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Five only towards resumption companyt of authorized super structure standing thereon which has been accepted by you, albeit, under protest.
By order dated 14.01.1985, the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and directed restoration of possession of the suit property to Mr. Kavasji K Framji.
1 that the petitioner had number established his title to the property to enable him to maintain the petition and 2 that the petition involved disputed questions of facts and law as to title and therefore the companyrt should number determine the same in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution but direct the petitioner to file a suit for that purpose.
The numberice in question was founded on the allegations inter alia that the appellants are in unauthorized occupation of the public premises mentioned in the schedule in the numberice i.e the suit property and therefore the appellants should vacate the suit property.
One Burjorji Goostadji and Cooverbai Homi Karani were the owners of the suit property.
The dispute relates to a property, which is situated at Survey No.417, Bungalow No.17, Dr. Coyaji Road formerly known as Elphinstone Road Pune411001.
The appellants herein are the writ petitioners and the respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises.
In that petition, by our reasoned judgment delivered on 521979, we have negatived the respondents said companytentions and held accepting the companytentions of the petitioner that the resumption by the Government of the petitioners land and bunglow were without any authority of law and therefore the impugned numberice was invalid.
The Union of India felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court Special Civil Application No.364/1971 .
In all, 14 special leave petitions were filed by the Union of India in this Court against the judgment order of the High Court.
Felt aggrieved by the numberice and the letter, Mr. Kavasji K Framji filed Writ Petition No.364/1971 in the Bombay High Court challenging both the numberice and the letter.
By the judgment order dated 05.02.1979 in Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria vs. H.C. Vashistha, AIR 1980 Bombay 9, the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared the numberice as illegal and issued without authority of law and accordingly restrained the Union of India from giving any effect to the impugned numberice.
The numberice companytained that on the expiry of 30 days period after its service, all private rights, and interest of Mr. Kavasji K Framji would be ceased.
feet .
Heard Mr. Darius Khambata, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned ASG for the respondents.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Mumbai Writ Petition No.4386 of 2001 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ petition filed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.03.15 174136 IST Reason appellants herein.
The order reads as under While companysidering 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 matter afresh in accordance with law without taking into companysideration or being influenced by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench.
These appeals were later transferred to this Court at the instance of the Union of India for their disposal and were re numbered as 6772/1985 and 1112/1987 .
By companysent order dated 20.07.1988, this Court remitted the appeals to the Bombay High Court for their disposal as directed therein.
The remaining appeals were disposed of by another order dated 25.03.1992 of this Court, which reads as under The Appeals are dismissed as infructuous in terms of the signed order placed on the file.
