It was further companytended on behalf of the Union of India that under the clauses of the aforesaid grant it was only the building which was companyveyed to the predecessors of the appellant and the same companyld always be resumed subject to payment of companypensation to be assessed on the companyt of the building.
We have heard Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Shri R.S. Suri, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
The aforesaid application was filed on the claim that the appellant is the owner of the property.
Thereafter, taking into account the judgment dated 06.07.1970 rendered by the High Court in Civil Misc.
It appears that on the strength of the aforesaid order passed by this Court the appellant moved an application before the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Allahabad, for mutation of his name in respect of the property in question and for permission to deposit the property tax etc.
Writ Petition No.
2866 of 1978 arising out of the inter pleader suit would operate as a res judicata on the question of title to the property was number decided by the High Court.
The Union of India sought to resist the claim of the appellant by asserting that the land on which the property stood was the subject of old grant dated 12.09.1836 issued by the Governor General in Council under which a right of resumption was vested in the Union.
175 of 1969 which was binding on the parties the dispute required resolution in a regular civil suit which companyld be filed by either of the parties in terms of the judgment of the High Court dated 06.07.1970.
Allahabad Polytechnic, therefore, filed an inter pleader suit No.
Writ Petition No.
In the said suit it was prayed that the defendants may inter plead so that the right to companylect rent of the property in dispute companyld be determined.
7284 of 2001 at the instance of the appellant.
The said decree was, in turn, affirmed by this Court on 22.02.1984 by dismissal of the special leave petition filed by the Union of India.
In Second Appeal No.2866 arising out of the aforesaid suit, the decree of the learned trial companyrt that the appellant and number the Union of India was entitled to receive rent was affirmed.
The appellant instituted Civil Misc.
The Union of India served numberice upon the aforesaid two occupants of the property demanding rent claiming to be the owner thereof.
Writ Petition No.
The order of rejection available in the original records of the case indicates that the rejection was made in view of the resumption order dated 26.12.1968 and also on account of objections of the cantonment authority with regard to the ownership of the appellant to the land.
161 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad impleading the appellant and the Union of India as Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.
The parties, therefore, were relegated to the remedy of a civil suit.
It appears that the appellant had also filed an application before the companypetent authority under Section 181 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 for sanction of plans for raising further additional companystruction on the land.
The High Court, by the impugned order, has taken the view that the judgment and decree passed in the inter pleader suit holding the appellant to be entitled to receive the rent in respect of the property would number operate as a res judicata so as to companyfer any finality to the issue of title in respect of the property.
Writ Petition No.
It appears that the Union of India had also asserted that, in any event, under the terms of the old grant title to the land had remained with the Union and was number and in fact companyld number have been transferred to the predecessors in interest of the appellant.
The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 07.01.2000 by holding that in view of the judgment dated 6.7.1970 passed in Civil Misc.
However, in the said proceeding an undertaking was made on behalf of the Union of India that the appellant would number be evicted from the property except in accordance with law.
What happened thereafter is number very relevant except that on 21.04.1992 Civil Misc.
2900/ in a Court auction held on 25.11.1848.
Both the appeals were disposed of by this Court on 19.12.2003 by remanding the matter to the High companyrt in view of the apparent inconsistency in the two orders of the High Court on the issue of res judicata.
The possession of the property of the predecessors in interest of the appellant and thereafter of the appellant is number in dispute.
It also appears that the appellant had filed an application dated 08.04.1977 seeking exemption of excess land under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Land Holding Ceiling Act, 1932 on the ground that he intended to raise accommodation thereon for economically weaker sections.
The auction sale was companyfirmed by the Court on 27.12.1848.
The aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court dated 07.01.2000 was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Civil Appeal No.
There is numberdispute that late Lala Manohar Lal grandfather of the present appellant had purchased the said property for a sum of Rs.
147 of 1971 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Allahabad seeking eviction of Allahabad Polytechnic and Harijan Sewak Sangh who were the tenants and sub tenants in the property.
13353 of 1992 and Civil Misc.
28558 of 2002.
175 of 1969 before the Allahabad High Court companytending that the property was purchased by his predecessors in interest and had fallen to his share in a family settlement.
29 Chaitham Lines, Allahabad and also to accept the property tax.
The issue as to whether the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No.
In the said writ petition while the appellant asserted his ownership of the property i.e. Bungalow as well as the appurtenant land the Union of India denied such ownership.
28558 of 2002.
Writ Petition No.
Around this time the appellant instituted Civil Suit No.
The present impugned order dated 27.05.2005 of the High Court has been passed pursuant to the aforesaid remand made by this companyrt by its order dated 19.12.2003.
Writ Petition No.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Civil Misc.
The aforesaid companyclusion of the High Court appear to be based on three principal grounds.143, Old Cantonment, Allahabad.
The High Court of Allahabad by its order dated 05.03.2003 disposed of the writ petition by requiring the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 274 of the Cantonment Act against the order of rejection dated 14.03.2002 which was pending, to be disposed of.
13353 of 1992 was filed by the appellant for issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioners as owners of Bungalow No.
The said application was rejected on 14.03.2002.
The Union of India issued a resumption numberice dated 26.12.1968 in respect of the property in question.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. The challenge in this appeal is against the companymon order dated 27.05.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
