CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER versus SURENDERA KUMAR VAKIL AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 23-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
v. 
SURENDERA KUMAR VAKIL AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 1999 
-
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
I ., 
Bengal Regulations of 1836 : 
Land in cantonme~t area given on 'old grant' basis by Authority-
C Regulation of-Held, the terms of the grant are statutorily regulated under 
Order No. 179 of the Governor Genefal in Council of 1836, knqwn as the 
Bengal Regulations of 1836, and the administration of land in cantonment 
areas is further regulated by the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the Cantonment 
Land Administration Rules, 1925 framed under it. 
D 
E 
F 
Bengal Regulations of 1836-Regulation 6-Land/in cantonment area 
given on old grant basis-Contravention of terms of the grant by dividing the 
site and sale of building situated on the land without prior sanction of the 
competent authority to persons not belonging to army-Held, land can be 
resumed by the authority in accordance with law. 
Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925-Rule 3-Person filing 
suit for declaration of title of land in cantonment area-No conveyance in 
respect of the said lands produced by the person-Authority adducing 
evidence to show that the file/register. of grants has been stolen-General 
land registers maintained by the authority under the Rules show that land 
is held on old grant basis-Held, the Regulations as well as the general 
land registers which are old documents maintained in the regular course 
and coming from proper custody, clearly indicate that the land is held on 
old grant basis. 
Words & Phrases-'Old Grant '-Meaning of in the context of Bengal 
G Regulations of 1836 and the Cantonments Act, 1924. 
The present appeal pertains to a land and a bungalow on it, situated 
in Sagar Cantonment and under the management of Defence Estate 
Officer, Jabalpur Circle, Jabalpur. The bungalow was purchased by one S.N. 
and his wife, from one P.M. The terms of the sale deed did not disclose the 
H nature of rights possessed by P.M. over the land. The property is shown as 
118 
' 
, 
C.E.O. v. SURENDERA KUMAR VAKIL AND ORS. 
119 
held on 'old grant' basis and stands in the name of S.N. as per the General A 
Land Register maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 
1925. After the death ofS.N., his legal heirs without applying for mutation 
of the property in their names, sold the entire bungalow to the respondents 
vide four registered sale deeds. In the sale deeds the property was described 
as leasehold land of the Cantonment Board and it was provided that the 
purchasers would have to abide by the terms and conditions on which the land B 
was held, and that the purchasers would have the same rights which the 
sellers were having. One S obtained power of attorney from both the vendors 
as well as the vendees for dealing and taking all proceedings in connection 
with the said bungalow. Thereafter by four amendment (admission) deeds the 
description of the land was changed from 'lease hold type' to 'old grant type. C 
S addressed a letter to the Military Estate Officer, Jabalpur Cantonment 
requesting him to enter in his records the transfer of the said bungalow in 
the names of the respondents. 
The Military Estate Officer issued a show cause notice to the vendors 
as well as the vendees for resumption of the site for contravention of the D 
terms of the grant for division of land and sale of the building comprised 
therein without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority as the 
land was held on 'old grant' terms. Reply was given to the notice stating that 
the sellers have only transferred the occupancy rights in respects of the 
bungalow which they were having as per the terms of the 'old grant'; that E 
the sellers were not aware that prior permission of the Military Estate 
officer was required before such sale and sought pardon for this unintentional 
lapse; and stated, inter alia, the reason for executing four sale deeds instead 
of one in respect of the building. The amendment/admission deeds were 
cancelled by cancellation deed and thereafter supplemental deeds were 
executed setting out that purchasers would have the same rights as the F 
predecessor of sellers had over the said building. Pursuant to a letter by the 
Cantonment Estate Officer, S submitted building application/plans for 
construction work on the said property. However, construction work started 
wJthout waiting for permission from the authorities. Despite rejection of 
building plans by the authority, the con

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