IMPORTANT POINT
The practice of annexing irrelevant documents and trying to rely on them for the first time in the Appeal or in Review Petitions in the High Court should be deprecated.

Headnote:Cantonment Act, 1924-Section 185-Cantonment land-Resumption proceedings-Suit Challenging resumption notice-Suit inter alia on ground land was not on basis of old grant basis-Defendant s case that land was on old grant terms and they were entitled to resume-Plea that land was not on old grant terms not pressed-Case pursued on basis plaintiffs (Appellants herein) had not been heard before notice of resumption-Suit decreed restraining defendants from dispossessing plaintiffs from property except in due course of law-Defendants appeal-No cross appeal by plaintiffs-First appellate Court affirming decree-Second appeal by defendants-While so Supreme Court laying down law in UOI v. Harishchand Anand, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 113 that land could be resumed merely by giving one month s notice-High Court reversing judgments of lower Court-Plaintiff s review petition putting forth case that land was not on old grant terms -Dismissal-Appeal to Supreme Court contending that land was not on old grant terms-Untenable-At all stages case had progressed on basis land was on old grant terms-Supreme Court has to go by what has been recorded in judgment of High Court-Concurrent findings of all lower Courts-No interference warranted-Practice of amending irrelevant documents and trying to rely on them for first time in appeal or in review petition in High Court-Deprecated-Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil 1999(3) Supreme 369 : Applied. (Paras 30 to 37)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 22436-22437 of 1997.

2. These Appeals can be disposed off by this common Judgment. It must be first mentioned that these Appeals were on board along with three other Civil Appeals. After arguments on behalf of the Appellants had taken place Civil Appeal No. 3221 of 1991, Civil Appeal No. 3503 of 1991 and Civil Appeal No. 4133 of 1991 were withdrawn by the Appellants therein.

3. In these Appeals the Appellants have land with bungalows in Ambala Cantonment area. As is being pointed out in greater detail hereafter, the cases had, till this stage, proceeded on the footing that the land was granted to the predecessors of these Appellants on "old grant terms". These Appeals therefore are fully covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil1.

4. Before arguments are considered facts in these Appeals need to be noted.

In Civil Appeal Nos. 917-918 of 1998 Notice of Resumption was given on 28th September, 1973.

A Suit bearing No. 280 of 1975 was filed in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Ambala, wherein the Order of resumption was challenged. In the Suit it was, inter alia, averred as follows:

"4. That the order of resumption of the above bungalow is illegal, invalid, malafide, whimsical, unconstitutional and in-effective against the rights of the plaintiffs, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) That in the first instance, it is wholly incorrect that the site on which the building is standing is an old grant as alleged by the defendant No. 2. However, even notice of assumption, which the plaintiffs do not admit, in that event too, the Government has no right to resume the property in the manner as alleged."

The Respondents in the Written Statement contended that the land was on old grant terms and that they were entitled to resume. The trial Judge, inter alia, raised an issue to the following effect:

"1. Whether the impugned resumption order is illegal and in operative as alleged in para No. 4 of the plaint OPP."

5. Strictly speaking a specific and separate Issue on this aspect would have had to be raised. Such a specific Issue was not raised as, for reasons set out hereafter, it is clear that this contention raised in para 4(b) was not being pressed. However, it is arguable that Issue No. 4 as it is framed covered, amongst others, the ground of challenge on the basis that the land on which the building was standing was not on old grant basis.

6. Parties then led evidence. In these Appeals the Appellants have not relied on the evidence led by them. But the original record is before the Court. It could not be shown to us that Plaintiff/Appellant led any evidence claiming ownership of land in question or denying title of Respondents. Admittedly documents shown to the Court were not tendered as Exhibits. On the other hand Respondents tendered and got marked as Exhibits, an admission in writing by Appellants predecessors that the land was on old grant terms, a copy of GGO No. 179 of 12th September, 1836 and the Register of Land Records. Parties then argued their respective cases. Ultimately, the Suit was decreed by a Judgment dated 27th November, 1978.

7. The Judgment sets out the submissions which have been made under the aforesaid Issue No. 1. In the submissions, as have been reproduced in the Judgment, there is no submission to the effect that the land was not under the old grant basis and/or that the Respondents were not the owners of the land. The entire submission, under Issue No. 1, has been on the basis that the Appellants had not been heard before the Notice of Resumption was issued and/or that compensation had been fixed in an arbitrary manner. The Court has accepted this submission and held that, without fixation of compensation and an opportunity of being heard, an order of resumption could not be passed. We have perused the entire Judgment. In the entir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 286

IMPORTANT POINTThe practice of annexing irrelevant documents and trying to rely on them for the first time in the Appeal or in Review Petitions in the High Court should be deprecated.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
The practice of annexing irrelevant documents and trying to rely on them for the first time in the Appeal or in Review Petitions in the High Court should be deprecated.