BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPALITY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 17-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPALITY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 17, 1989 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963-Article 65-Suit for possession based on 
title-Principle that possession follows title-When can be relied upon. 
The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit against the defendents-
respondents for a declaration of its title and for possession of the suit 
property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint which consisted of two 
parts; the first part related to a large extent of vacant land known as 
parade ground and the second part ~rblined to survey Nos. 162 to 165 
on which stood structures of old Lancer's Lines and certain evacuees 
were occupying the same at the time of institution of the suit. The 
second part is known both as Lancers Quarters and Rasala Lines. In the 
suit the plaintiff also claimed damages for wrongful occupation of a 
portion of the property and rent for another portion for the period from 
lst January 1964 till delivery of possession. The Plaintiffs' case was that 
by virtue of Resolution No. 37 dated 19.1.1984 and Resolution No. 77 
dated 29.2.48 published in Bhavnagar Darbar Gazette the entire suit 
lands vested in and belonged to the plaintiff who entered into and 
remained in possession thereof. According to the plaintiff the Govern-
ment of India claiming to be the owner of the Parade Ground, in or 
about June 1961, fixed the boundary marks and thus the entry of the 
Government of India constituted wrongful encroachment. As regards 
the Lancers' Quarters, it was stated in the plaint that they did not 
belong to the plaintiff, that the .. ame were occupied by the State Lancers 
and subsequently by the refugees and that the plaintiff allowed the land 
and the structures thereon to be used free by the Government. However 
the plaintiff asserted that it was entitled to recover rent or compensa-
tion in respect thereof from l.1.54 till delivery of possession. 
The defendents denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that 
consequent upon the Bhavnagar State acceding to the Indian Union and 
consequent on the Federal Financial Integration of State~the accommo-
dation, lands and buildings in the use or occupation,of the Ex-State 
forces were transferred to the Government of India and became its 
property. The defendents-respondents denied that the snit land vested 
in the plaintiff on the strength of the Resolution aforesaid. 
219 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
~1989] Supp, 2 S.C.R. 
The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved its title to the 
suit land and that it was in possession of the suit property till 7.7.1952. 
It also held that the suit having been filed on 3rd March 1964, the same 
was not barred under section 65 of the Limitation Act. As regards 
Rasala Lines, the trial Court did not uphold the claim of tht plaintiff, 
because of its admisSlon that it did not own the buildings standing 
thereon. As such the Trial Court decreed the suit for possession in 
respect of Parade Ground alone and dismissed the same in respect of 
Rasala Lines . 
. The first defendant Union of India preferred an appeal to the 
High .Court against the decree of the trial Court and the plaintiff filed 
cross-objections in so far as the suit was dismissed i.n respect of.Rasala 
Lines. The High Court dismissed the cross-objection filed by the appel-
lant but allowed the appeal of the Union of India holding inter alia that 
there was nothing on record to show that the Municipality was formally 
handed over ~he land in question and that its right over the land was 
never recognised by the Union of India or the State Government. The 
o High Court also held that the suit was liable to be dismissed as being 
.time-barred. · Hence this appeal by the {llaintiff-Municipality by 
Special Leave. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
E 
HELD: With the accession and completion of territorial and 
F 
financial integration and part 'B' states forming part of Indian Union, 
!he lands and buildings in the use or occupation of the former Indian 
State Government, as distinguished from the private properties of the 
Rulers, were transferred and vested in the Government of India and 
became its property. l226D] 
The right to sell such lands of the State Government were with the 
Government concerned. It is that right that was given to the 
Municipalities after the formation of the Union of the United States of 
Saurashtra. It cannot be treated therefore, a

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