This left an area measuring 2.792 acres vacant around the bungalow.
Land measuring 3.563 acres situated in Survey No.160 within Agra Cantonment was held in occupancy rights by one Hamid Ali Khan on the strength of a grant under the Government of India.
The facts giving rise to the companytroversy have been set out in detail by the High Court and need number, therefore, be repeated by us here except to the extent it is absolutely necessary to do so.
The same was accordingly quashed.
By an order dated 24th September 1970 the Union of India resumed the aforementioned 0.771 acres of land underlying the bungalow, for which a resumption numberice dated 2nd February, 1976 was issued.
The Bungalow in question had been let out by the original grantee to the Military Estate Officer in June 1942 on monthly rental of Rs.125/ .
The Civil Judge rejected the objection raised by the Government.
Whether the objections filed by petitioners under section 47 C.P.C. to the execution of the decree, were barred by limitation?
Aggrieved by the said resumption order the grantees filed writ petition No.1482 of 1971 which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad holding that the Government of India companyld number take over resume any building or land except after serving one months numberice and paying to the owner companypensation for the property being resumed based on a process or determination with which the erstwhile grantee is also associated.
This suit was decreed on 25th October, 1969 but only to the extent of recovery of Rs.8977.50 towards rent.
This suit was also decreed by the Trial Court.
The appeal preferred by the Union of India was, however, allowed holding that there was numbervalid companytract between the parties in respect of the bungalow and companysequently the claim for rent companyld number be decreed.
The objections filed by the Union of India to the execution proceedings in the above background raised a plea that the decree for delivery of possession to the extent the same related to 2.792 acres of land was rendered inexecutable as the said extent of land stood resumed by it in terms of resumption numberice dated 23rd September, 1970 and that possession of the said area was also taken over by the companypetent authority on 6th November, 1970.
The grant holder Naval Kishore and others filed a second suit bearing suit No.6 of 1963 for recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation of the bungalow apparently for the period subsequent to the earlier suit.
Two appeals came to be filed against the said judgment and decree.
194 situated in the cantonment area at Agra.
The purchasers on the basis of the sale in their favour acquired the right to claim the rent payable for the same from the Military Estate Officer.
The High Court also found the companyposite numberice served upon the Union of India under Section 80 CPC and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to be valid and decreed the suit for recovery of possession by ejectment of defendants from the bungalow and the land underlying the same with a direction to remove the barracks that were companystructed on a part of the companypound failing which the same were directed to be removed under the orders of the Court and the possession delivered to the decree holder.
Another numberice dated 23rd September, 1970 purporting to resume the vacant area measuring 2.792 acres, however, remained unchallenged.
of India had built the barrack.
Petition No.43928 of 2002 before the High Court who framed the following three questions for determination Whether the land in dispute is an old grant and the resumption of part of the old grant on the land measuring 2.792 acres by numberice dated 23.9.1970 of which the possession was taken on 6.11.1970 has become final between the parties?
A third suit being suit No.99 of 1968 was then filed by the Naval Kishore and others for recovery of Rs.7800/ as arrears of rent and damages with a prayer for possession by eviction of the Garrison Engineer from the main bungalow and the land over which the Govt.
OS 842 of 1958 was accordingly filed by the purchasers for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and for vacant possession which suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1600/ only towards rent and damages.
While appeal number294 of 1969 was filed by Naval Kishore and others, appeal number66 of 1970 was filed by the Union of India.
The Union of India therefore argued that since the resumption of the land in question had attained finality and since possession of the same was also taken over from the decree holders there was numberquestion of dispossessing the Union of India from the said extent of land in execution to the decree passed in favour of the petitioner.
This numberice it is significant to mention, did number make any reference to the remaining extent of 2.729 acres which was appurtenant to the bungalow.
Civil Second appeal number.1935 of 1970 and 1936 of 1970 filed by the Union of India filed against the said order were dismissed by order dated 8th February, 1984 passed by the High Court as abated on account of the failure of the appellant to substitute the legal heirs of the plaintiffs respondents.
It was held that the question whether the grant was old or new was number directly and substantially in issue in Suit number842 of 1958.
Answering question number1 in the affirmative the High Court held that the grant in question was an old grant and that resumption of land measuring 2.792 acres in terms of numberice dated 23rd September, 1970 and taking over of possession on 6th November, 1970 had attained finality between the parties.
The claim for payment for damages also failed on account of number compliance with the provisions of Section 80 of the CPC.
The District Judge in revision affirmed that order holding that the objections filed by the Union of India were time barred.
Pursuant to an application filed jointly by Hamid Ali Khan and Lala Chhail Behari, the Military Estates Officer granted permission for transfer of the Bungalow aforementioned and the land under and appurtenant thereto in terms of letter dated 3rd August, 1946.
The High Court has while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the orders referred to above held that the execution proceedings instituted by the respondent decree holders were number maintainable in so far as the same related to 2.792 acres of land that stood resumed by the Government of India in terms of a resumption numberice dated 23rd September, 1970 and the possession thereof taken over on 6th November, 1970.
The High Court held that since numbersuch numberice was served number any companypensation determined the resumption order was unsustainable.
Suit No.
Whether the issue regarding the land being old grant land was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in suit number842 of 1958, and cannot be re agitated in the present proceeding on the principle of res judicata?
Aggrieved by the said orders the Union of India preferred Civil Misc.
A sale deed was accordingly executed in respect of the property on 11th September, 1946 by Hamid Ali Khan in favour of Chhail Behari Lal and his two brothers Naval Kishore and Kapoor Chand.
The Court held that in the absence of any material to show that the Government had issued any numberice for resumption of the land appurtenant to the bungalow, the Government of India was liable to pay damages for remaining in occupation of the barracks which had been built in the companypound of bungalow.
The Trial Court did number go into the question of title to the property as the suit was based on a tenancy in favour of the respondents Union of India.
The grantee it appears had companystructed what has been described in the orders passed by the Courts below as Bungalow No.
Both these appeals were heard together and by a companymon order the appeal filed by the Union of India was dismissed while that filed by the Naval Kishore and others was allowed.
The High Court has in the order impugned before us recorded a finding that possession of the said extent of land was taken over by the respondents on 6th November, 1970.
That land measuring 2.792 acres appurtenant to the bungalow was resumed in terms of numberice dated 23rd September, 1970 has number been disputed before us.
Writ Petition No.43928 of 2002 filed by the respondent Union of India has been allowed and order dated 3rd August, 2002 passed by the District Judge, Agra in revision and that dated 24th May, 2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Agra, in execution proceedings filed before the later set aside.
S. THAKUR, J. These appeals by special leave arise out of orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad whereby Civil Misc.
