Important Point
Where land held on old grant basis was sold without prior permission of the cantonment authorities and purchasers started construction without permission of the authorities, purchase and construction being in violation of terms of grant, cantonment authorities could resume land in accordance with law.

Judgment

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-These appeals pertain to a property ad­measuring 11.37 acres comprising Survey No. 392 and known as Bungalow No. 39, Sagar Cantonment. As per the General Land Register maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules of 1925, the said property is shown as held on ‘old grant’ terms and stands in the name of Shri S.N. Mukherjee. The site is described as B-3 land and is placed under the management of Defence Estate Office, Jabalpur Circle, Jabalpur.

2. According to the respondents, by a sale deed dated 27th of Septem­ber, 1927, S.N. Mukherjee and his wife, Sarjubala Devi, purchased the said property together with the adjoining Bungalow No. 40 from one Pandit Murlidhar Dubey. The terms of the sale deed, however, do not discloses the nature of the rights possessed by Dubey over the land comprising Bungalow Nos. 39 and 40.

3. S.N. Mukherjee who was the occupancy holder as recorded in the General Land Register died in the year 1972 leaving behind 11 legal heirs. Bungalow No. 39 which is the subject matter of the present appeals, however, was not mutated in the names of the legal heirs since they did not apply for mutation. By four registered sale deeds dated 26.2.1983, the heirs of S.N. Mukherjee sold the entire property consisting Bungalow No. 39 in favour of 24 persons who are the re­spondents. One Gopal Das Soni obtained power of attorney from both the vendors as well as the vendees for dealing with the said property and taking all proceedings in connection with it.

4. In the said sale deeds the property was described as leasehold land of the Cantonment Board and it was stated that the purchasers will have to abide by the terms and conditions on which this land was held in the name of the ancestors of the sellers. It was further provided that the purchasers will have the same rights which the sellers were having on the place sold to them. Thereafter by four amendment (admis­sion) deeds dated 4/5.8.1983, the power of attorney holder on behalf of the Vendors stated that in the said sale deeds, due to a typograph­ical error, the land was shown as leasehold type whereas it should have been described as ‘old grant’ type. Therefore, by the amendment deeds the said description was being changed to ‘old grant’ type.

5. By his letter dated 26.8.1983 addressed to the Military Estate Officer, Jabalpur Cantonment, the power-of-attorney holder informed the Military Estate Officer that Bungalow No. 39, Survey No. 392, Sagar Cantonment, was held in the name of S.N. Mukherjee. He had died on 13.7.1972 leaving behing 11 legal heirs as set out therein and that the said legal heirs had sold the said property in favour of 24 re­spondents (whose names were set out in the letter) by virtue of 4 sale deeds of 26th of February, 1983. By the said letter he requested that the above named Bungalow No. 39 may be transferred in the records of the Military Estate Officer, in the names of the purchasers. Thereaf­ter correspondence ensued between the parties. The Military Estate Officer on 3.10.1983 issued a notice to the Vendors as well as the Vendees stating therein that the said area is held on ‘old grant’ terms in the name of S.N. Mukherjee in the records maintained in his office. He further stated that the Vendors divided the entire land into four portions without obtaining the prior sanction of the compe­tent authority in contravention of the terms of the grant on which the site was held and that the sale in favour of the purchasers was also without obtaining the prior sanction of the competent authority and in contravention of the terms of the grant, which would attract action for resumption of the site. The notice asked the purchasers as well as the sellers to show cause why action for resumption of the site be not taken against them. In his reply dated 15.10.1983 the power-of-attorney holder stated that as per the terms of the ‘old grant’ the sellers were having occupancy rights in respect of Bungalow No. 39 and,