It was also said that the public purpose had number been mentioned in the numberice itself and, therefore, the numberice was invalid.
It was urged that in any event a petition under Art.
and Cedar Lodge in Shillong.
the sale Messrs Jamatullah Sons companystructed three houses on the land, known as Cedar Lodge, Cryptomaria and Eldorado.
The appellant is the successor of Messrs Jamatullah Sons.
It was said that the property had been resumed lawfully in terms of CL.
The land in dispute was originally located in the State of Mylliem in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills.
226 of the Constitution was number maintainable.
V of the lease dated April 1, 1907 by the Secretary of State for India in favour of Capt.
The forwarding numbere of the Deputy Commissioner reads as follows L 14/7/2/62/24 Shri Md. Haniff, Police Bazar, Shillong Sub Resumption of properties known as Cryptomaria, Eldorado.
The document of lease was executed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 22, 1966 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No.
716 8 9 and annual revenue of Rs.
On April 1, 1907 the Secretary of State for India on behalf of the British Crown made a settlement of the land with Capt.
Cryptomaria is occupied by one of the Ministers of the Government of Assam and Cedar Lodge has been occupied by the offices of the Electricity Board.
Subsequent to.
resume the land by virtue of C1.
The only question at issue is whether the respondent was entitled to.
119 of 1959 challenging the validity of the order of resumption.
Out of the three buildings, the appellant has been living in Eldorado and the other two buildings have been given on rent to the Government of Assam.
35 of 1963 in the Assam High Court challenging the validity of the order of resumption on the ground that the land did number vest in the State of Assam and the Deputy Commissioner had numberright to issue a numberice under CL.
E.M. Manley for 99 years on a premium of Rs.
35 13 3.
Illegible Deputy Commissioner You are offered an amount of Rs.
The appellant thereafter filed another writ petition No.
226 of the Constitution was number companypetent.
35 of 1963.
This land was leased out in perpetuity to the British Government by Khasi Land owners Thholyomawrie and U. Mongormawrie by a deed of lease executed on November 4, 1874.
On behalf of the appellant Mr. B. Sen stressed the argument that there was numberdisputed question of title involved in this case.
On April 22, 1966 the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant holding that the case involved disputed questions of title, that the remedy of the appellant was to file a suit in a civil companyrt and a petition under Art.
Soon after the decision of the High Court there was a proposal for a companypromise between the parties and the Government agreed to drop the resumption proceedings on certain terms and companyditions.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
whereby the High Court by a majority judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
59,965/ was determined as companypensation payable to the appellant.
226 of the Constitution.
In the companynter affidavit the respondent companytended that the petition was barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the previous judgment of the High Court dated February 26, 1960.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, dated April 22, 1966 in Civil Rule No.
I am to forward herewith a companyy of order by the Government of Assam for resumption of Cryptomaria, Eldorado and Cedar Lodge properties for public purpose and to state that as ordered therein, possession of the land along with buildings and improvements made thereon, if any, will be taken over by me on the expiry of the period of 7 seven days from the date of receipt of this numberice.
5,09,965.00 Rupees five lakhs, nine thousand, nine hundred and sixty five only being the total companyt of resumption in respect of the above mentioned properties and the said amount will be paid to you within 31 3 63.
The appellant thereafter moved the High Court of Assam in Civil Rule No.
The title of the appellant as a grantee was number questioned on behalf of the respondent.
The companytention of the ex Zamindars was that they had proprietary rights in the Maliahs and the State of Orissa had numberright to resume the lands granted to them and were number entitled to recover possession from them.
By a majority the High Court dismissed the writ petition flied by the appellant holding that rights and obligations springing from the companytract of lease should be decided by the ordinary civil companyrts and it is number proper for the High Court to exercise its power under Art.
V of the lease and the Government of Assam was companypetent to resume the land and the Deputy Commissioner was companypetent to issue a numberice of resumption and the companypensation offered was the proper companypensation under the terms of the lease.
1378 of 1966.
V of the lease.
Sen and P.K. Ghosh, for the appellant.
Niren De, Attorney General, Naunit Lal and S.N. Chaudhury, for the respondents.
35 of 1963.
Manley sold his right and title in the land to Messrs Jamatullah Sons.
