LexSMT. USHA KAPOOR & ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 401 SMT. USHA KAPOOR & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1844 of 2008) AUGUST 14, 2014 [RANJAN GOGOi AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] A B Cantonment Laws - Notice for resumption of land - In exercise of powers vested by Order No. 179 of the Governor General in-Council dated 12. 9. 1836 - Claiming the land to be C Old Grant land - Propriety of - Held: In view of the nature of holding i.e. 'Old Grant' and in view of the nature of rights of holder i.e. 'occupancy rights' in respect of the structures thereon, the UOI having vested title in it, has the power to resume - Cantonment Act, 1924. D Respondent-Government of India, issued Notice, dated 14th December, 2001 for resumption of the land having a bungalow in the cantonment area, in exercise of powers vested by Order No. 179 of the Governor General-in-Council dated 12th September, 1836. The E second Notice dated 5th February, 2002 was consequential and required the appellant to hand-over the land to Defence Estates Officer. Appellant filed writ petition challenging the two F notices. The stand of the appellant was that the property in question was purchased by her predecessor-in- interest in 1943. The High Court took into account the prior sanction G of the Governor General-in-Council acting through the Commander-in-Chief for the sale and transfer contemplated by the deed dated 1st September, 1943 which, according to it, was in conformity with Clause 6(4) 401 H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A of the Order No.179 of the Governor General-in-Council dated 12th September, 1836 embodying the terms of the Old Grant and held that the property was Old Grant. Therefore, High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. General Land Register (GLR) is required to be maintainea by the MUitary Estates Officer of the Cantonment under the provisions of the Cantonment C Land Administrative Rules framed in exercise of power under Section 280 ·of the Cantonment Act, 1924. The General Land Register maintained by the Cantonment Board under the Cantonment Act and the Rules framed thereunder is a public document and the entries therein D are conclusive evidence of title. The reference to the nature of the holding i.e. old grant and the nature of rights of the holder i.e. occupancy rights, in the G.L.R. in the present case is conclusive of the fact that the land is covered by an old grant and the rights enjoyed by the E appellants were mere possessory or occupancy rights in respect of the structures thereon. The terms of such grants being statutory and the same having vested title of the land in the UOI with the power of resumption, the impugned notices dated 14th December, 2001 and 5th F February, 2002 must be acknowledged to be legal and valid. [Para 13) [412-C-F] Chief Executive Officer vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors. 1999 (3) SCC 555: 1999 (2) SCR 118; Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. 2012 (8) SCC 148: 2012 (8) SCR 35; G Union of India & Ors. vs. Kam/a Verma 2010 (13) SCC 511; Union of India & Ors. vs. Robert Zomawia Street 2014 (6) sec 707 - relied on. Raj Singh vs. The Union of India AIR 1973 Delhi 169; H Union of India vs. Tekchand 1999 (3) SCC 565; Mohan USHA KAPOOR v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 403 Agarwal vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1979 Allahabad 170 - A referred to. 2. The class of land in question has been described as B-3 in the GLR. The aforesaid description of the land is relatable to Rule 6 of the Cantonment Land 8 Administrative Rules. The meaning and expression "held by any private person" in Rule 6 (iii) of the' Rules cannot mean that the private person would not be a tenant but would hold the land on the basis of a legal title thereto. [Paras 14 and 15) [412-H; 413-A, D, E] Case Law Reference: AIR 1973 Delhi 169 referred to Para 11 1999 (3) sec 565 referred to Para 11 AIR 1979 Allahabad 170 referred to Para 11 1999 (2) sqR 118 relied on Para 12 2012 (8) SCR 35 relied on Para 13 2010 (13) sec 511 relied on Para 13 2014 (6) sec 101 relied on Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1844 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2006 of the High Court Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9024 of 2002. K.K. Mohan For the Appellants. R.S. Suri, Ashok K. Srivastava, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sunita Sharma, B.V. Bairam Das (For Anil Katiyar) fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.