Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 361
- Decided
- 6 May 2014
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 render the Transfer of Property Act inapplicable to government grant lands and give the government absolute authority to resume such lands, limiting the respondents' rights to the superstructure only.
Summary
The dispute concerned a 0.90‑acre parcel of land in Pune Cantonment held under an 1827 government grant. The respondents had purchased the lease‑hold rights and the superstructure on the land, while the Union of India (Pune Cantonment Board) issued a resumption notice in 1971 claiming the land remained government property. The High Court had set aside the resumption notice and the trial court treated the parties as landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court held that under Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to such grant lands and the government retains unfettered discretion to resume the land according to the grant’s terms. Consequently, the respondents possessed only rights over the building, not the land, and there was no landlord‑tenant relationship. The Court set aside the lower courts’ judgments and affirmed the Union’s right to resume the land.
Issues considered
- Whether the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies to land held under a Government grant.
- Whether the Union of India can resume the land under the old grant terms.
- Whether a landlord‑tenant relationship exists between the Union of India and the respondents.
- Whether the High Court's order setting aside the resumption notice is valid.
- Whether the respondents hold free‑hold title to the land.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Government grant landCantonmentResumption of landTransfer of Property ActGovernment Grants ActLand ownershipLeasehold rightsLandlord‑tenant relationshipSpecific Relief ActCivil Procedure CodeCompensation
Judgment
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 1073
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. A
v.
DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6194 of 2013)
MAY 06, 2014
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, SUDHANSU JYOTI
MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]
Government Grants Act, 1895:
c
ss. 2, 3 - Government Grant lands - Applicability of
Transfer of Property Act - Held: Transfer of Property Act is
not applicable to Government Grant lands - Further; ·s.3
makes it clear that Government Grants is to take effect
according to their tenor, notwithstanding any rule of law, statute
0
or enactment of the legislature to the contrary - Therefore, the
Government has unfettered discretion and u/s.3 can impose
any condition, limitation or restriction in its grants and the
rights, privileges and obligations of the grantee would be
regulated only according to the terms of the grant itself though
they may be inconsistent with the provisions of any statute or E
common law - Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Government Grant Land situated in cantonment area -
Power of Military Authorities to cancel. the grant - Held: Grant
of land situated in cantonment area under the old grants form F
a self contained provision prescribing the procedure as to the
grant and resumption of the land - If land is resumed by
Government in accordance with law, the grantee cannot take
recourse to Civil Procedure Code or the Specific Relief Act
against the Government. G
Resumption of Government Grant land - Land on which
suit property was built belonged to the government-
cantonment board - Allotted to grantee with permission to
1073 H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 5 S.C.R.
A erect superstructure on it - Grantee sold the suit property to
respondent with clear assurance to the authorities that
respondent would exectJte such documents in favour of the
Government as may be required under existing Rules - Right
of respondent on the suit property - Held: Respondent has
8 right only with regard to the structure built on the suit premises
and the Government has right to resumption of suit premises
on payment of value of superstructure - There is no landlord-
tenant relationship between the government and the grantee.
The appellants had served resumption notice in
C respect of suit property•comprising of main bungalow,
servant quarter and garage situated in Cantonment Area
upon the respondents which they had challenged before
the High Court. The High Court had declared the
resumption notice void, inoperative and without legal
D effect. The connected matters before the Supreme Court
were remitted back to the High Court. In light of that, the
appeal by the appellant before the Supreme Court was
declared infructuous without prejudice to their rights. The
appellants filed review application against the said order
E and same was disposed of recording the statement of
Solicitor General to the effect that the Union of India
would seek dispossession of the respondents from the
suit property in accordance with law.
F The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for possession,
arrears of rent and damages against the defendants-
appellants in respect of the suit property. The defence of
the appellant was that the property was held on old grant
terms and, therefore, the government has every right to
resume the property; that the land on which the suit
G property was built belonged to the respondent Pune
Cantonment board and was allotted by way of grant to
one 'N' who had erected superstructure including
bungalow, garage and servant quarter. In 1891, the said
bungalow was bequeathed by 'N to his son 'M'. The name
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1075
of 'M' was registered in the General Land Register A
wherein it was mentioned that the bungalow in question
was held under old grant under conditions of GGO 14
dated 6th January 1827; the said fact was mentioned in
the agreement and repairing lease dated 29th August,
1941 between 'M' and the Governor General in council; B
consent letter dated 19th December, 1967 written by 'M'
to the Ministry Estates Officer showed that permission for
sale of suit property in favour of the respondents was
sought for by 'M' with clear assurance that the
respondent would execute such documents in favour of c 1
the State as may be required under the existing rules.
The trial court partially decreed the suit on the
ground of breach of terms and conditions of tenancy i.e.
non-repair of suit premises and directed the appellants
to handover the symbolic possession of suit premises. D
The High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court:
Hence the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1. Consent letter dated 19th December, 1967
written by 'M' to the Military Estates Officer showed that
permission for sale of suit property was sought for by·'M'
and two others as they wanted to sell of their right, title
and interest in the property to the respondents as a part
F
of settlement of the family dispute. Permission was also
sought for to complete the said transaction with clear
assurance that 'the respondents in whose favour the
rights were sought to be sold were ready to execute such
document in favour of the State as may be. required under
the existing rules. The Military Estates Officer in reference G
to letter dated 19th December, 1967 informed 'M' that
sanction was accorded to the transfer by sale of the
bungalow to the respondents and asked them to comply
with certain instructions that it should be mentioned in
the sale deed to be executed that the land is held on old H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A tenure and is not being sold. It was mentioned in
undertone of sale by 'M' in favour of the respondent that
the vendors agreed to sell and the purchaser agreed to
purchase all the leasehold rights being perpetual grant
under the old grant of the Poona Cantonment Board.
B Thus, it is clear from these record that the land measuring
0.90 acres bearing General Land Register belonged to the
appellant. [Paras 31, 32 33 and 35] [1091-B-F; 1092-F;
1094-8; 1096-E]
C 2. The Government of India from Ministry of Defence
by notice dated 11th June, 1971 intimated the
respondents that the land belongs to the President of
India i.e. the Government and is held on Old Grant terms
under which the Government is entitled to resume the
same. It was informed that the Government has resumed
D the said property under the terms of the Old Grant for its
use and therefore, in exercise of power conferred under
the provisions of the Act agreed to offer a sum of
Rs.31,537/- as the value of the authorized erection
standing on the said land. It was further intimated that in
E case if the amount of compensation offered was not
acceptable to the respondent, a committee of arbitration
would be convened to assess the value of the erection
on the land. A cheque for the amount was also attached
along with the said notice. [Para 37] [1098-C-E]
F
3.. Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1895
clarifies the doubts regarding the non-applicability of
Transfer of Property Act. Not only the Transfer of Property
Act is made inapplicable to the Government grants but
Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 further
G makes it clear that the Government grants is to take effect
according to their tenor, notwithstanding any rule of law,
statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary.
Therefore, it is clear that the Government has unfettered
discretion and under Section 3 can impose any condition,
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1077
limitation or restriction in its grants and the rights, A
privileges and obligations of the grantee would be
regulated only according to the terms of the grant itself
though they may be inconsistent with the provisions of
any Statute or Common Law. The grants of lands situated
in cantonment area under Old Grants form a self B
contained provision prescribing the procedure as to the
grant and resumption of the land and hence recourse to
the Civil Procedure Code or the Specific Relief Act is not
applicable. From the permission for sale of property letter
dated 19th December, 1967, Indenture of Sale dated 12th c
November, 1968 and admission certificate dated 19th
April, 1971 signed by the respondent, it is clear that the
Military Authorities have the power to cancel the grant if
the land is used for any purpose other than for it was
originally granted. [Paras 38, 39, 43, 44 and 45) [1098-F; D
1099-B; 1100-B-E]
Azim Ahmad Kazmi and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Anr. (2012) 7 SCC 278: 2012 (6) SCR 960; Chief
Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil and Ors. (1999) 3
SCC 555: 1999 (2) SCR 118; Union of India and Ors. v. E
Kam/a Verma (2010) 13 SCC 511 - relied on.
4. In the suit plaint, the plaintiffs-respondents falsely
claimed that the suit premises was owned by the
plaintiff~ as freehold property. The plaintiffs.respondents
F
also misled the Court by stating that the resumption
notice dated 11th June, 1971 was set aside by the High
Court and the said order has attained finality. In fact the
High Court order was challenged before the Supreme
Court and the Court recorded the statement on behalf of
the Union of India that it would seek dispossession of the G
respondents from the suit property in accordance with
law. The liberty given to the Union of India to dispossess
the plaintiffs-respondents from the suit property clearly
indicated that the decision of the High Court that the suit
premises did not belong to the Union of India wa,s not H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 5 S.C.R.
A . acceptable to this Court. The misleading pleading made
by the plaintiffs-respondents was without any evidence
and the same influenced the Court in coming to a wrong
conclusion that the plaintiffs-r~spondents were the
landlords and defendants-appella11ts were the tenants of
B the suit premises. The appellate court also failed to
appreciate the evidence and erred in affirming the trial
court's view. The land of the suit premises belonged to
the Union of India-appellants. Therefore, they cannot be
held to be tenants of the suit premises comprising of an
c area of 0.90 acres together with structure consisting of
main Bungalow, Servant Quarter and Garage. The
plaintiffs-respondents have only right with regard to the
structure built on the suit premises. The Union of India-
appellants have a right for resumption of the suit
premises, as evident from evidence on record. [Paras 46,
0
48, 50 to 54] [1100-E-F; 1102-A-D, E-H;, 1103-A-C]
Case Law Reference:
2012 (~) SCR 960 Relied on. Para 40
E 1999 (2) SCR 118 Relied on. Para 41
(201 O) 1'~ sec 511 Relied on. Para 42
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6194 of 2013.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2009 of the
High Court of Bombay in CRA No. 272 of 2009.
Mohan Parasaran, S. G., K. Radhakrishan, Indra Sawhney,
G Madhurima Tatia, Z. Hussain, B. V. Bairam Das, Anil Katiyar
for the Appellants.
Shyam Divan, Aditya Panda, Shikhil Suri, Pranav Desai,
Shiv Kumar Suri, Hasan Murtaza for the Respondents.
H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1079
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal A
is directed against the judgment dated 25th November, 2009
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil
Revision Application No.272 of 2009. By the impugned
judgment the High Court dismissed the Revision Application
and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate B
Court and the Trial Court.
2. The dispute relates to the piece of property bearing
GLR Survey No. 258, admeasuring 0.90 acres which comprise
of superstructure consisting of main bungalow, servant quarter C
and garage situated at Elphinstone Road, Pune Cantonment,
Pune (hereinafter referred as the "suit premises").
3. The case of the appellants is that the suit premises as
aforesaid belongs to the appellants - "Pune Cantonment
Board". The Governor-General by its order No.14(G.G.0.-14) D
dated 6th January, 1827 intimated that officers not provided with
public quarters may receive permission to erect houses within
fortress or military cantonmentyonferring on them right of
property whatever in the ground allotted to them for that
purpose, which will continue to be the property of the State, and E
resumable at the pleasure of the Government. The plot
admeasuring 0.90 acres (suit premises) in question was initially
granted to one Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria who erected
superstructure, including the Bungalow in question. In the year
1891 he bequeathed the suit bungalow no.1 A, Elphinstone F
Road to his son Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria. The name
of Maneckhji Nusserwanji was registered in General Land
Register. Therein it was mentioned that the bungalow in
question is held under old grant under conditions of GGO 14
dated 6th January, 1827.
G
4. An agreement for occupation by Government of the
property in a cantonment not requisitioned under the
Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act known as "Repairing
Lease" was entered between Maneckji Nasserwanji Anklesaria
H
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A in one part (First Part) and the Governor General in Council on
the other (Second Part) on 29th August, 1941, whereunder
property described in Schedule I thereto i.e. Bungalow No. 1-
A with servant quarter, garage, etc. was given in possession
to the second part (i.e. Governor General in Council) for a
B consideration of monthly payment of Rs.196/- payable on the
first of every month, the first of such paym~nt being made on
the first day of August, 1941. As per the said agreement, the
appellants were required to maintain the premises i.e.
Bungalow No. 1-A with servant quarter, garage etc .. It was
c agreed upon that if by reason 9f fire or tempest or other cause
not occurred by the willful act or default of the party on the
second part, the premises or any part or parts thereof or was
in the opinion of the party on the second part is rendered
uninhabitable at any time, the said agreement in force, then until
the premises or such part and parts thereof as are affected shall
0
be restored or rendered fit for reoccupation to the satisfaction
of the party on the second part.
5. Subsequently, by an Indenture of Sale dated 12th
November, 1968 between Manekji Nassurwanji Anklesaria and
E two others and plaintiffs-respondents, Dinshaw Shapurji
Anklesaria and two others it was agreed to sell and purchase
the lease-hold rights being perpetual grant under the old grant
of the Pune Cantonment Board over the suit premises including
the bungalow, servant quarters' garage, etc. with full rights of
F ownership of the building for total consideration of Rs. 60,000/
-. In the said "Indenture of Sale" it was narrated that necessary
permission on that behalf had been received from the authorities
concerned by letter no. 201125/Q(PP) dated 14th June, 1968,
signed by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, Head
G Quarter, Southern Command.
6. The admission certificate with regard to suit premises
was issued by the plaintiffs-respondents on 19th April, 1971 in
favour of the Military Cantonment Estate Officer, Poona Circle,
Pune.
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1081
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
7. According to appellants, as per terms of old grant, the A
appellants decided to resume the said property and, therefore,
issued notice from its Ministry of Defence being Notice No. 701/
27fl/L&C/71/3606/D(Lands) dated 11th June, 1971 to
plaintiffs-respondents intimating the intention to resume the suit
premises and also informed that the appellants are ready to B
pay a compensation of Rs.31,537/- as the value of the
authorized erection made on the said land. The plaintiffs-
respondents were informed that in case the amount of
compensation offered is not acceptable to them, the committee
of Arbitration will be convened to assess the value of the c
authorized erection on the land. The cheque for the said amount
was attached with the aforesaid notice. The symbolic
possession of the bungalow in question was taken on 12th July,
1971.
8. After about two years, the respondent filed Special Civil D
Application No. 1536/1973 challenging the resumption notice
dated 11th June, 1971. Some other individuals who erected
bungalows on similarly situated lands which were also resumed,
also filed similar special civil applications including Special Civil
Application No. 1286 of 1972, etc.. E
9. By judgment and order dated 5th February, 1979, the
Bombay High Court allowed the Special Civil Application
No.1286/1972 being Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria Vs. H. C.
Vashistha & Others, AIR 1980 Bom 9 and set aside the notice F
of resumption. The High Court held that there is no evidence
whatsoever of the Government's right to resume the land in
possession and the terms under which right of such resumption,
if any, could be exercised. It further held that most importantly
there is no evidence of the right or power of Government to G
acquire the structure standing on the land in question by
arbitrarily or unilaterally determining compensation.
·10. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, writ petition
preferred by the plaintiffs-respondents in Special Civil
H
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Application No.1536/19_73 was also allowed by judgment dated
27th February, 1979.
11. Being aggrieved by judgmenfs passed in various
special civil applications whereby the High Court set aside the
B resumption notices, the Union ·of India filed SLP(C) Nos.498-
511/1980 before this Court. Against the judgment dated 27th
February, 1979 passed in the case of plaintiffs-respondents in
SCA No. 1536/1973 the defendants-appellants filed SLP(C)
No.503/1980 .
C 12. By order dated 19th March, 1980 leave was granted
in SLP(C) Nos.498-511 /1980 and they were renumbered as
Civil Appeal Nos.608-621 /1980.
SLP(C) No.503/1980 filed by the appellants against the
0 judgment dated 27th February, 1979 passed in the case of the
plaintiffs-respondents was renumbered as Civil Appeal No.613/
1980 after admission.
13. Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria-petitioner in Special Civil
Applications Nos. 1286/1972, 1487/1972, 1486/1972 and
E 1484/1972 had filed civil suits for rent and possession against
the Government of lncjia before CJSD, Pune. Same were
numbered as Civil Suit No.477/1980, 476/1980, 488/1980 and
475/1980.
F The said suits were decreed by the CJSD, Pune relying
upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Phiroze Temulji
Anklesaria (supra);
14. Against the aforesaid judgment, the appellants filed
appeal Nos.1159/1984, 1160/1984 and 1161 /1984. Cross
G Appeal No.1 /1985, Cross Appeal No.2/1985, Cross Appeal
No.3/1985 were also filed in those appeals. Second Appeal
Nos.15 and 16 of 1989 were subsequently filed before the
Bombay High Court.
H When Civil Appeal Nos. 608-621/1980 preferred by the
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1083
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
appellants against the original judgment in Phiroze Temulji A
Anklesaria (supra) reached for final hearing before this Court,
the abovementioned appeals preferred before the Bombay
High Court were called for by this Court on the ground that they
were interconnected.
B
As a result appeals covered by SCA No.1286/72, SCA
No.1486/72, SCA No.1487/72, SCA No.1484/72, SCA
No.1485/72 got transferred to this Court and numbered as
Transferred Case Nos.67 to 72 of 1985 and 11 & 12 of 1987.
15. Transferred Case Nos. 67 to 72 of 1985 and 11 &12 C
of 1987 titled Union of India & Others v. P.T. Ankleshwar (dead)
by LRs. & Ors. on hearing were remitted back to the High Court
for disposal by this Court on 20th July, 1988, with the following
directions:
D.
"1. While conside(irf{J the merit of the case, the High Court
shall not place any reliance upon the Division Bench
judgment of the High Court consisting of D. H. Rege and
R.A. Jahangir, JJ. rendered in Special Civil Application
No. 1286172 decided on 616 February, 1979 against i;
which appeals are pending in this Court.
2. While considering 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 F
extent, and the High Court shall decide the matter afresh
in accordance with law without taking into consideration
or being influenced by the aforesaid judgment of the
Division Bench.
G
3. The parties will be at liberty to adduce additional
evidence before the High Court within the period fixed by
the High Court."
16. Civil Appeal Nos. 608-621 of 1980 titled Union of India
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A & Others v. P. T. Ankleshwar (dead) by LRs. & Ors. were
subsequently taken up by this Court and in the light of
observation made on 20th July, 1988 in Transferred Case
Nos.67 to 72 of 1985 and 11&12 of 1987, as quoted above,
by order dated 25th March, 1992, this Court declared the
B appeals to be infructuous without prejudice to whatsoever rights
to which the appellants are entitled in"law.
17. The respondents, thereafter, filed Civil Application
No.3382 of 1992 in Special Civil Application No.1536 of 1973
C before the Bombay High Court for possession of the suit
premises. The Bombay High Court by its order dated 11th
September, 1992 directed the appellants to handover symbolic
possession of the suit premises bearing survey no.258,
Bungalow No.1-A situated at Elphinstone Road, Pune
Cantonment, Pune to the respondents.
D
18. The appellants filed a review application before this
Court for review of order dated 25th March, 1992 passed in
Civil Appeal Nos.608-621 of 1980 on the ground that only the
civil appeals connected with transferred cases in which the
E issue of ownership of land and building were interlinked with
validity of resumption notices had become infructuous. In other
Civil Appeal Nos.620, 610, 613 (the appeal preferred against
the judgment in the case of plaintiffs-respondents), 614, 618,
609 and 621 of 1980, the issue of ownership of land and
F building was not interlinked with validity of resumption notices
and hence the same had not become infructuous .
19. By the order dated 13th November, 1995, this Court
allowed the review application thereby modifying the order
dated 25th March, 1992 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.608-621
G of 1980 by setting asrde the order of dismissal of the aforesaid
civil appeals as infructuous as there were no eviction decrees
obtained by any of the bungalow owners.
20. The aforesaid civil appeals including Civil Appeal
H No.613 of 1980 fried by the Union of India against the plaintiffs-
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1085
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
respondents were taken up for hearing on 4th August, 1998 A
when the following order was passed:
"Learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India
would seek dispossession of the respondent- occupants
from the properties involved in accordance with law and 8
if need be, through a Civil Gou.rt by filing suits. In case
such steps are taken, any observations made by the High
Court which would stand to defeat the remedies sought
would not stand in its way. On such stance of the Union
of India, Civil Appeals as also the special leave petitions C
stand disposed of accordingly."
21. The plaintiffs-respondents thereafter filed suit for
possession, arrears of rent and damages against the
defendants-appellants in the Small Causes Court at Pune
numbered· as Civil Suit No. 695 of 1999. It was contended D
therein that the defendants-appellants served resumption notice
upon the plaintiffs-respondents which was challenged by the
plaintiffs-respondents before the Bombay High Court in SCA
No.1536 of 1973 which was allowed and the resumption notice
was declared void, inopera_tive and without legal effect. The said E
order of the High Court was affirmed in Civil Appeal No.613 of
1980. The appellants filed review application and the same was
disposed of recording the statement of learned Solicitor
General. An Order which was passed by the High Court with
respect to resumption notice was not set aside. Therefore, the F
occupation of defendants-appellants in the said property is that
of lessee. The plaintiffs-respondents are, therefore, entitled to
ask for possession of the property from the defendants-
appellants as the defendants are trying to set up adverse title.
22. The defendants-appellants contested the suit by filing G
detailed written statement. It was brought to the notice of the
Court that the property was held on old grant terms, therefore
the Government of India has every right to resume the property.
It was also contended that the Government has resumed the
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A property and the plaintiffs-respondents have no right to ask for
possession. It was also contended that the Military Authorities
have made a plan to demolish the present structure and
construct a new building for accommodation of its officers and
therefore, repair for the suit premises was not under taken.
B
23. In the said suit the Trial Court framed the following
issues:
(1) Do plaintiffs prove that they are landlords and the
defendants are tenants of the suit premises?
c
(2) Do they prove that the defendants have committed
breach of agreement of lease by not maintaining the
property and by causing damage to it?
(3) Do they prove that the defendants have disowned the
D title of the plaintiff and thereby committed breach of the
agreement of lease?
(4) Do they prove that the defendants have caused damage
to the extent of Rs.4 lac to the suit property?
E
t (5) Do they prove that the defendants are in arrears of rent
since 1.7 .1971 to 30.6.1999 at the rate of Rs.196/- per
month?
(6) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and
F decide this suit?
(7) What is due to the plaintiffs?
(8) What relief, order and decree?
G 24. By judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2005, the Trial
Court partially decreed the suit on the ground of breach of terms
and conditions of tenancy i.e. non-repair of the suit premises.
The Trial Court directed the defendants-appellants to
H handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1087
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
premises together with structure consisting of main bungalow, A
servant quarter, garage and any other ~tructure thereon to the
plaintiffs-respondents.
24.1 With reference to issue nos.1 and 6, it was held that
in view of sale deed dated 12th November, 1968 in favour of 8
the Maneckji Ankesaria, the consent letter dated 19th
December, 1967 and the lease agreement dated 29th August,
1941 the plaintiffs were only holders of occupancy rights in
respect of the land and were owners of the superstructure. The
defendants were tenants and hence the suit was between the C
landlord and the tenant and the Small Causes Court has
jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the same.
24.2 The issue no.3 was answered in negative with
observation that the defendants have legal right of resumption.
Mere exercise of such right does not mean that the defendants D
have denied the lease hold right over the land and ownership
of the superstructure of the plaintiff.
24.3 Issue no.5 regarding the defendants being in arr-ears
of rent since 17th July, 1979 to 30th June, 1999 @ Rs.196/- E
per month was answered in negative with the observation that
there was no willful default on part of the defendants and the
defendants have deposited arrears of rent along with interest
there on @ Rs.9% per annum before the date of hearing of the
suit. Thus, defendants are entitled to protections of evi_ction as- ·
F·
per the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 12 of the Bombay
Rent Act. The defendants were not in arrears of the rent on the
date of hearing of the suit.
24.4 The issue no.2 regarding the breach and terms of the
agreement by not maintaining the property and by causing G
damage to it was answered in affirmative.
24.5 The issue no.4 regarding the plaintiffs' entitlement to
damages of Rs.4 lakhs was answered in negative for want of
evidence.
H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A 24.6 The issue no.7 regarding the amount due to the
plaintiff was answered in negative.
25. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
9th June, 2005 passed in Civil Suit No.695 of 99, the appellants
B preferred Civil Appeal No.26 of 2006 in the District Court, Pune.
26. In Civil Appeal No.26 of 2006, the First Appellate Court
by judgment and decree dated 15th January, 2009 whUe
dismissed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court holding that the plaintiffs-respondents
C are entitled to recover the amount of Rs.20,972/- along with
cantonment taxes @ 6 per cent per annum from February, 2000
till the date of actual realization.
27. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 15th
0 January, 2009 the appellants preferred Civil Revision
Application No.272 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court. The
Bombay High Court dismissed the same giving rise to the
present appeal.
28. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General of
E India appearing on behalf of the appellants-Union of India made
the following submissions:-
(i) As per Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1895,
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable to such
F Government grant lands and the Government Grant is
taken effect as if the said Act had not been passed.
(ii) Not only the Transfer of Property Act is made
inapplicable to the Government but Section 3 of the
Government Grants Act, 1895 makes it clear that the
G Government grants is to take effect according to their tenor,
notwithstanding any rule of law, Statute or enactment of the
Legislature to the contrary to the same.
(iii) (Crown)- Union of India has unfettered discretion to
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1089
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
impose any condition, limitation or restriction in its grants A
and rights, privileges and obligations of the grantee would
be regulated only in accordance with the terms of the grant
itself though they are inconsistent with the provisions of any
Statute or Common Law.
8
(iv) The possession of the house was taken by the
appellant-Union of India from the plaintiffs-respondents in ·
due course of law and that the plaintiffs-respondents was
not entitled to any remedy against the Government either
by way of a writ petition or a suit or under Section 6 of the C
Specific Relief Act.
(v) Clause 4 of the Repairing Lease Deed dated
29.08.1941 even protects the Government's right of
resumption and therefore, the plaintiffs-respondents cannot
derive advantage of the Repairing Lease Deed for claiming D
right or title over the suit premises.
(vi) In view of the Section 3 of the Government Grants act,
1895_. the Bombay Rent Control Act will not be applicable
in absence of landlord-tenant relationship, the land being E
in the nature of a Government grant over which the super-
structure was constructed.
(vii) No right has been vested or granted in the repair lease
to the occupant to evict the owner of the land who in this
case incidentally proceeded to become the occupant of F
the super-structure put up by the plaintiffs-respondents.
That will not create any legal landlord-tenant relationship
as in other cases as the property in question falls in the
cantonment area and is governed by Government grants.
G
29. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-
respondents raised following grounds to dismiss the appeal:
(i) The High Court's judgment dated 27.2.1979 passed in
the Writ Petition preferred by plaintiffs-respondents in SCA
H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 5 S.G.R.
A No. 1536/1973 setting aside the notice of resumption
dated 11th June, 1971 has reached finality. The legality
and propriety of aforesaid decision cannot be raised at this
stage.
{ii) In absence of jurisdictional error committed by Court's
8
below, the High Court was right in refusing to interfere with
concurrent findings of fact. The scope of Revisional
Jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited and the
same cannot be exercised to interfere with the finding of
fact.
c
(iii) Since the High Court's approach and analysis is
correct, this Court should not exercise its power under
Article 136 of the Constitution to set aside the impugned
order.
D
30. The case of the appellants is that the suit premises
(land) belongs to Union of India- "Pune Cantonment Board". It
was allotted by way of grant to one Nusserwanji Sorabji
Anklesaria who erected super structure including bungalow, ;
E garage and servant quarter. In 1891, the suit bungalow no.1A,
Elphinstone Road was bequeathed to Maneckhji Nusserwanji
Anklesaria by his father Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria. The
name of Maneckhji Nusserwanji was registered in the General
Land Register. Therein it was mentioned that the bungalow in
question is held under old grant under conditions of GGO 14
F dated 6th January, 1827.
The aforesaid fact is also clear from the agreement and
repairing lease dated 29th August, 1941 reached between
Maneckhji Nusserwanji and the Governor General in Council
G wherein at clause iii (4) it is mentioned as follows;
"(4) Nothing herein shall prejudice the right of the party
of the second part to resume under the terms of the
C1ntonment ff.!nure above referred to; and
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1091
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
(5) In the event of any dispute arising between the party A
of the first part and the party of the second part as regards
the interpretation of any terms or condition herein
contained, the same shall be referred to C.R.E. Poona
Area whose decision will be final."
B
31. The consent letter dated 19th December, 1967 written
by Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria to the Military Estates
Officer, Poona Cantonment, Poona shows that permission for
sale of property bearing No.1A, Elphinstone Road, Poona
Cantonment, Poona was sought for by Maneckji Nassurwanji C
Anklesaria and two others as they wanted to sell of their right,
title and interest in the property to Dins haw Shapurji Anklesaria
and two others as a part of settlement of the family dispute.
Permission was also sought for to complete the said
transaction with clear assurance that Dinshaw Shapurji D
Anklesaria and two others in whose favour the rights are sought
to be sold are ready to execute such document in favour of the
State as may be required under the existing rules.
32. The Military Estates Officer, Poona Circle in reference E
to above letter dated 19th December, 1967 informed Maneckji
Nassurwanji Anklesaria that sanction was accorded to the
transfer by sale of\the above bungalow to Dinshaw Shapurji
Anklesaria and others and ask them to comply with certain
instructions, as evident from the said letter, is quoted below:
F
"No. H/517
Office of the Mily. Esates Officer,
Paone Circle, Poona-1, 25 June, 1968.
To, G
Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria,
94, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Poona-1.
H
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Subject: Transfer of 8. No. 1-8 Elphinestone Road,
Poona Cantonment.
Dear Sir,
Reference your letter dated 19. 12. 1967.
B
2. With the previous concurrence of the GOC-in-C,
Southern Command, Poona sanction is hereby accorded
to the transfer by sale of the above bungalow to Shri.
Dinshaw S. Anklesaria and others of 94-A Mahatma
c Gandhi Road, Poona-1 for a sum of Rs. 60, 0001- subject
to the condition that the intending purchasers executed
and registers the admission certificate of their own
expense as per their undertaking dated 3.1.68.
D 3. Please comply with the following instructions:-
(i) It should be mentioned in the sale deed to be
executed that the land is held on old Tenure and
is not being sold.
E
(ii) The date of execution of the sale and the
number and date on which it was accepted for
registration should be intimated to this office.
F (iii) The sale deed duly registered should be
forwarded to this office through CPO, Poona for
necessary mutation entries being made in the
GLR. The document will be returned when no
longer required.
G Yours faithfully,
Sd!-
Military Estate Officer,
Poona Circle,
(Y.P. Kapoor),
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1093
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Copy-to:- A
Shri. Dinshaw S. Anklesaria and others,
94-A, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
B
Poona-1. - With reference his u_nderlaking dated 3.1.68
please forward a non-judicial stamp paper to the value
of Rs.3.00 together with site plan (one on tracing cloth)
... ~ ... drawn to a scale 40' to an inch in respect of the
above bungalow showing the existing authorized c
buildings to enable this office to take furlher necessary
action in the matter.
The C.R.O, For
information. D
Poona-1."
33. Indenture of sale made and executed on 12th
November, 1968 by Maneckji Nassurwanji Anklesaria and two
E
others (vendors) in favour of the Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria
and two others (vendee) reads as follows:-
"Whereas the vendors are fully seized and possessed of
and otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to all the lease
F
- hold rights in all that piece and parcel of land being
perpetual grant under the old grant of the Poona
Cantonment and of the full right of ownership of all the
building and structure standing on the property known as
No. 1-A, Elphinestone Road, Poona Cantonment, Poona G
1 and which property is more described in the Schedule
"A" hereunder written ................................... the
vendors agreed to sell and the purchaser agreed to
H
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A purchase all the leasehold rights being perpetual grant
under the old grant of the Poona Cantonment Board in
all that piece and parcel of the· land situated within the
Registration District of Poona and Registration Sub-
District of Taluka Haveli and situated within the limits of
B
the Poona Cantonment Board and within the Revenue
limits of Taluka Poona City and bearing Poona
Cantonment No.1-A, Elphinestone Road, Poona
Cantonment, Poona-1 and bearing G.L.R. and Survey
c No. 258 and bearing Military Estate House No.517 along
with the full rights of ownership of all buildings out ·-
houses, structures, appurtenances and benefits of all
amenities belonging to or available to the said property
and which property is more fully described in the
D Schedule 'A' hereunder written, free from all
encumbrances, charges, burdens ........ "
34. Thereafter, Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria purchaser of
the bungalow no.1A, Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment
E signed admission- certificate dated 19th April, 1971 with
following conditions:
"Admission Certificate
F We, the undersigned, Shri Dinashaw S. Anklesaria
residing at 94-A Mahatma Gandhi Road, Poona
Cantonment, the purchaser of Bungalow No.1 A,
Elphinstone Road General Land Register Survey No.258
of Poona Cantonment, Sub District and Taluka Haveli,
G District Poona, do hereby subscribe to the conditions
(reproduced below) of the original grant pertaining to the
site thereof and this agreement shall be binding on me as
well as my heirs, successors and assigns as the case may
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1095
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
be whoever shall be in possession of the said property. A
Conditions
1. Permission to occupy ground in a Military
Cantonment confers no proprietary right: it
8
continuous the property of the Estate and
presumable at the pleasure of Government, but in
all practicable case one month's notice of
resumption will be given and the value of all
buildings which may have been authorized to be c
erected thereon, as shown in the accompanying
plan, as estimated by the Committee
contemplated in General Order-Separate of 1856,
will be paid to the owner.
D
2. That no buildings are to be erected on the ground
other than those now existing and shown on the
attached plan no additions or alternations are to
be made thereto without the permission of the
Officer Commanding the Station. E
3. The ground, being the property of Government
cannot be sold by the grantee. The buildings mav
be sold by house owners of the previous
permission of the Officer Commanding the
Station. F
4. That the Militarv Authorities have the power to
cancel the grant if the ground is used for any
purpose other than for which it was originally
granted. G
5. We also agree to abide by any orders and rules
that may be passed regarding tenure of land in
cantonments.
Place: Poona H
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Dated: April 1971
Signature of the purchaser of
Bungalow No.1-A, Elphinstone Road
Sy. No.258 Poona Cantonment.
The above conditions have been explained by me to the
B
purchaser of Bungalow No.1-A Elphinstone Road, Poona .
Cantonment, and have been subscribed to by him in my
presence.
Place: Poona
c
Dated: 19th April, 1971
Military Estates Officer
Poona Circle
D (K. C. Agarwal)"
35. From the aforesaid records, it is clear that the land
measuring 0.90 acres bearing General Land Register Survey
No.258 situated at Elphinstone Road, Poona Cantonment,
Poona belongs to the appellant. The said land was leased by
E way of grant originally to Nusserwanji Sorabji Anklesaria under
conditions of GGO 14 dated 6th January, 1827. The super
structure including bungalow, garage and servant quarter on the
plot was constructed by him. In the year 1891, the super
structure bequeathed to his son-Maneckhji Nusserwanji.
F Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria and two others sold their
right, title and interest over the super structure i.e. bungalow
no.1A in favour of Dinshaw Shapurji Anklesaria and two others
(nephews of Maneckhji Nusserwanji Anklesaria). Thereby file
G of .the super structure was transferred in favour of Dinshaw
Shapurji Anklesaria and two others but the title of the land
remained with the appellant.
36. This is also evident from General Land Register-
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1097
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Cantonment 8-A(1) dated 7th March, 2007 and relevant portion A
of which is as follows:
"Extract Form General Land Register-
Cantonment 8-A(1)
B
Survey No.258 S No.122 VOL. No.II PAGE
Details and date of mutation 1
Subsidiary Sy. No. 2
Volume & ·Page No. of 3
c
Register
Area in Acres/Sq.Ft. 4 0.90 acre.
Description 5 Bungalow D
No.1A.
Elphinstone
Road
Class 6 B-3
E
By whom managed 7 D.E.O
Landlord 8 Central
Government
Holder of occupancy rights 9 Maneckhji F
Nusserwanji
Nature of Holder's right 10 Old Grant
under GGO conditions
of 14 of
6.1.1827 G
Rent payable: Central Govt. 11
Per annum Cantt. Boa~
Date of expiry of lease 12
H
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A Remarks 13
Station: Pune-1
Dated: 07, March, 2007
Sci/-
B Defence Estates Officer
Pune Circle
(SR. Nayyar)"
37. The Government of India from Ministry of Defence by
notice dated 11th June, 1971 intimated Dinshaw Shapurji
c Anklesaria and two others that the land belongs to the President
of India i.e. the Government and is held on Old Grant terms
under which the Government is entitled to resume the same. It
was informed that the Government has resumed the said
property under the terms of the aforesaid Old Grant for its use
D and therefore, in exercise of power conferred under the
provisions of the Act agreed to offer a sum of Rs.31,537/- as
the value of the authorized erection standing on the said land.
It was further intimated that in case if the amount of
compensation offered was not acceptable to the respondent,
E a committee of arbitration will be convened to assess the value
of the erection on the land. A cheque for the amount was also
attached along with the said notice.
38. The Government Grants Act, 1895 as would be evident
from the preamble and Section 2 therein, seeks to clarify the
F doubts with regard to the extended operation of the Transfer
of Property Act. Section 2 of the Act reads as follows:
"2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not to apply to
Government grants.-Nothing in the Transfer of Property
G Act, 1882, contained shall apply or be deemed ever to
have applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of any
interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made
by or on behalf of the Government to, or in favour of, any
person whosoever; but every such grant and transfer shall
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1099
'·
~SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
be construed and take effect as if the said Act had not A
been ,passed."
39. ,-Not only the Transfer of Property Act is made
inapplicab~ to the Government grants but Section 3 of the
Government Grants Act, 1895 further makes it clear that the 8
Government grants is to take effect according to their tenor,
.,
notwithstanding any rule of law, statute or enactment of the
Legislature to the contrary. Section 3 lays down as follows:-
"3. Government grants to take effect according to their
tenor.- All provisions, restrictions, conditions and C
limitations over contained in any such grant or transfer as
aforesaid shall be valid and the effect according to their
tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment of the
Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding."
D
40. This Court in Azim Ahmad Kazmi and Others. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2012) 7 SCC 278, has held
that the Government grant of lease of land is governed entirely
by the terms of the grant. The Court took note of Section 3 of
the Government Grants Act, 1895 which is to take effect E
according to its tenor notwithstanding any other law to the
contrary.
41. In Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil
and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 555, this Court has held that·the
grantee under the old grant terms is a mere occupier/licensee F
having no title over the land so as to entitle him to transfer the
land or to another person without prior consent of the authorities
concerned. The Court further held that the regulations as well
as the General Land Register which are old documents
maintained in the regular course and coming from proper G
custody clearly indicate that the land was held on old grant
basis and this was sufficient for the Government to resume the
land in accordance with law.
42. In Union of India and others v. Kam/a Verma, (2010)
H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A 13 SCC 511, this Court has held that it is always open to the
Union of India to resume the land held on old grant terms and
that the Union of India cannot be prevented from resuming the
said land.
43. Therefore, it is clear that the Government has
8
unfettered discretion and under Section 3 impose any condition,
limitation or restriction in its grants and the rights, privileges and
obligations of the grantee would be regulated only according
to the terms of the grant itself though they may be inconsistent
C with the provisions of any Statute or Common Law.
44. The grants of lands situated in cantonment area under
Old Grants form a self contained provision prescribing the
procedure as to the grant and resumption of the land and hence
recourse to the Civil Procedure Code or the Specific Relief Act
D will not be applicable.
· 45. From the permission for sale of property letter dated
19th December, 1967, Indenture of Sale dated 12th November,
1968 and admission certificate dated 19th April, 1971 signed
E by the respondent it is clear that the Military Authorities have
the power to cancel the grant if the land is used for any purpose
other than for it was originally granted.
46. In the suit the plaintiffs-respondents falsely claimed that
the suit premises described in para 1 of the plaint is owned by
F the plaintiffs as freehold property. This would be evident from
the pleadings made by the plaintiffs-respondents, as discussed
below.
47. The description of the property has been shown at
G paragraph 1 of the plaint as under:
"1. Description of the Property:
All that piece and parcel of property bearing GLR Survey
No.258 and corresponding an area of 0.90 acres together
H
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1101
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
with structure consisting of main Bungalow. Servant Quarter A
Garage and Servant Quarter. and bounded as under:
On or towards the East: Elphinstone Road
On or towards the South: Bungalow No.2,
Elphinstone Road B
On or towards the West: Bungalow No.13, Moldina
Road
On or towards the North: Bungalow No.13, Moledina C
Road"
· Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint read as under:
D
· "2. That the property described in Para 1 above is owned
by plaintiffs as freehold property.
3. That the said property originally belonged to
. Nusserwanjee Sorabji Anklesaria. Plaintiffs have
purchased the property as per conveyance deed dated E
12.11.1968 from Shri Maneckaji Nusserwanjee Ankelsaria.
That name of plaintiffs was also recorded in GLR Record
and which was subsequently removed by the defendant
no.2 illegally. The plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid act
of defendant no.2 deleting the name of the plaintiffs in Civil F
Court.
4. That lease deed dated 29.8.1941 was executed by the
then owners of the suit property and Union of India. That
as per the aforesaid lease deed the said property was G
leased out to defendants under repairing lease for a period
of 5 years. After the expiry of the said period the
defendants continued to be in use and occupation of the
said property as at tenant holding over on the same terms
and conditions as a mor)thly tenant. Thus the defendants
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R.
A are occupying the said property as a statutory tenant only."
48. The plaintiffs-respondents also misled the Court by
stating that the resumption notice dated 11th June, 1971 was
set aside by the Bombay High Court and the said order has
B attained finality.
49. In fact the judgment aforesaid on challenge before this
Court in Civil Appeal No.613 of 1980, heard along with other
appeals, this Court by order dated 4th August, 1998 made the
following observation:
c "Order
Learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India
would seek dispossession of the respondent-occupants
from the properties involved in accordance with law and
o if need be, through a Civil Court by filing suits. In case
such steps are taken, any observations made by the High
Court which would stand to defeat the remedies sought
would not stand in its way. On such stance of the Union
of India, Civil Appeals as also the special leave petitions
E stand disposed of accordingly."
50. The liberty given to the Union of India to dispossess
the plaintiffs-respondents from the suit property.clearly indicates
that the decision of the Bombay High Court that the suit
premises do not belong to the Union of India was not
F acceptable to this Court.
51. The aforesaid misleading pleading made by the
plaintiffs-respondents is without any evidence and the same
influenced the Court in coming to a wrong conclusion that the
G plaintiffs-respondents are the landlords and defendants-
1 appellants are the tenants of the suit premises.
52. The Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the
evidence and erred in affirming the Trial Court's view that the
plaintiffs-respondents are the landlords and defendants-
H appellants are the tenants.
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1103
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
53. The land of the suit premises belong to the Union of A
India-appellants herein. Therefore, they cannot be held to be
tenants of the suit premises comprising of an area of 0.90 acres
together with structure consisting of main Bungalow, Servant
Quarter and Garage.
B
54. The plaintiffs-respondents have only right with regard
to the structure built on the suit premises. The Union of India-
appellants have a right for resumption of the suit premises, as
evident from evidence on record as discussed above. This
issue was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court, the
Appellate Court and the High Court which also failed to notice C
the appellants' right under Section 2 and 3 of the Government
Grants Act, 1895.
55. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
judgment dated 25th November, 2009 passed by the High Court D
of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.272
of 2009, the judgment dated 15th January, 2009 passed by the
First Appellate Court and judgment and decree dated 9th June,
2005 passed by the Trial Court. Civil Suit No.695/1999 on the
file of Small Causes Court, Pune is dismissed. E
56. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Government grant land"Sign in to search