ARUN LAL & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 1176 · Decided: 30-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1176 
ARUN LAL & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6464 of 2004) 
NOVEMBER 30, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Government grants - Resumption of property - Land in 
cantonment area - Grant of by Government of India to grantee 
C - Grantee constructing a bungalow and letting it out to military 
officer on rent - Original grantee selfing the bungalow and 
land appurtenant thereto to purchasers - Suit by purchasers 
for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and vacant 
possession of bungalow and land utilized by Government to 
D build barracks - Suit decreed - Execution proceedings by 
decree holders -
Objection by Government that land 
appurtenant to the bungalow resumed in terms of notice and 
its possession was taken - Executability of decree - Held: 
Entire extent of land including the one under barracks could 
E be taken over pursuant to resumption - Thus, possession of 
the said extent of land could not be taken away from Union 
of India for delivery to decree-holders - Said order had 
attained finality - After resumption and taking over of 
possession by Union of India in exercise of its rights as 
F paramount title holder, it was no longer holding the same as 
tenant so as to be answerable to petitioners as its landlords 
- Executabi/ity of decree qua the main bungalow not assailed 
or questioned - Decree-holders entitled to retain possession 
of main bungalow until Union of India issues any further 
orders of resumption of property - Thus, High Court was right 
G in setting aside the execution proceedings - Cantonments -
Decree - Execution - Judgment/order. 
The Government of India granted land measuring 
3.563 acres situated within the Cantonment Area to 'H'. 
H 
1176 
ARUN LAL v. UNION OF INDIA 
1177 
The original grantee constructed a bungalow over an 
A 
area measuring 0.771 acres and let out the same to the 
Military Estate Officer on rent. Thereafter, 'H' entered into 
a sale deed in respect of the bungalow and the land 
appurtenant thereto with 'C' and his brothers. The 
purchasers filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, 
B 
damages for construction of barracks on the said land 
and for vacant possession of the bungalow and the land 
on which the Government had built barracks. The trial 
court decreed the suit towards rent. Thereafter, various 
litigations were filed. The High Court decreed the suit for c 
recovery of possession by ejectment of the defendant. 
The decree holders filed execution application before the 
executing court. The Government raised objections that 
the decree for delivery of possession of 2.792 acres of 
land was rendered inexecutable as the said land stood 
D 
resumed by it in terms of resumption notice; and that 
possession of the said area was also taken over by the . 
competent authority from the decree holders. The Civil 
Judge rejected the objections. The District Judge upheld 
the order. The High Court set aside the execution 
proceedings. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant 
appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1.1 There is no reason to take a view different 
from the one taken by the High Court. The land 
measuring 2.792 acres appurtenant to the bungalow was 
resumed in terms of notice dated 23rd September, 1970. 
The notice was not assailed by the grantees before any 
court or authority. The possession of the resumed land 
G 
appurtenant to the bungalow which was taken over on 
6th November, 1970 was also not assailed nor is the 
finding recorded to this effect by the High Court under 
challenge. At any rate there is no error or perversity in 
that finding of the High Court to warrant interference. It 
H 
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
is common ground that the land appurtenant to the 
bungalow had been utilised by the Union of India for 
construction of barracks. Therefore, the entire extent of 
2.792 acres of land including the one w1der the barracks 
could be taken over pursuant to the resumption order 
B 
which was never assailed and had thereby attained 
finality. Such being the position, the High Court was right 
in holding that the possession of the said extent of land 
could not be taken away from the Union of India for 
delivery to the decree-holders. After the resumption of the 
c property and the taking over of the possession by the 
Union of India in exercise of its rights as the paramount 
title holder, it was no longer holding the same a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.