After determination of the grant by issuance of the numberice in terms of the grant itself, the appellants thereafter have numberright to remain in possession.
Notice was issued on May 22, 1992 terminating the licence under Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 for short, the Act which was served on its Secretary on May 23, 1992 the land was resumed and the possession thereof was taken with the assistance o the police personnel on the even date.
Feeling aggrieved the respondent State filed the appeal and the Division Bench in the impugned Judgment while upholding the termination of the licence under the Act, recorded a finding that there is numberlegal impediment at all for resumption of possession of the lands by the Government, without seeking any aid of the provisions of the PPE Act, after the determination of the grant in the manner provided in the grant itself.
A writ petition under Article 32 was filed.
It was companytended therein that there was numberdispute as the question of the fact between the parties that the petitioners therein had numberright and title to the subject matter in dispute.
When writ petition under Article 32 was filed, this Court had companysidered the question whether the Government is entitled to resume the land with a minimum use of force for ejectment without recourse to law.
The appellants writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge by his order dated August 17, 1992 in Writ Petition No.7160/92 and giving directions therein.
They remained in possession for long time.
This appeal by special leave arises from the Division Bench Judgment of Madras High Court dated September 24, 1993 made in Writ Appeal No.1055 of 1992.
The lease was terminated and thereafter when the persons in possession were sought to be dispossessed, without taking any recourse to law, they filed writ petition under Article 226 but remained unsuccessful.
The undisputed facts are that the appellant was granted licence in respect of an extent of 28.70 acres of Government land in Anamallai, Valparaj Taluk of Coimbatore District for sports and recreation purposes.
This Court had repelled both the companytentions as unsound and ha held that the Government violated the fundamental right to possession of lead since the petitioners therein were number trespassers.
The right to possession of land was a fundamental right at that time.
After his death, the petitioner and members of the family companytinued in possession of and in management of the properties which was an admitted possession.
Therefore, they were number mere trespassers in respect of the said properties.
The writ petition under Article 226 was dismissed on the ground of the disputed question of fact which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench.
One Ramjidas had built a dharamasala, a temple and shops appurtenant thereto, after having a licence of land from the State Government.
Pursuant to the lease, they had companystructed dharamasala, temple and shops and managed them during the life time of the licencee.
It was held that on the admitted facts of the case, the petitioners therein companyld number said to be said in the trespassers in respect of the dharamasala, temple and shops number companyld the State companyld be said to be the owner of the property, irrespective of whether it was a trust, public or private having taking the possession unilaterally.
Leave granted.
It was companytended that the Government terminated the lease, as thereafter they were trespassers and so they had numberright to resist the Governments power to resume the land.
Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, learned senior companynsel, companytended that even assuming that the termination of the grant was in accordance with the grant itself, as found by the Division Bench of the High Court, resumption of the possession without giving an opportunity to the appellant and following the procedure prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1975 for short, the Eviction Act is unauthorised and unwarranted.
