The Government cannot resume the land held by a private individual on old grant terms without any authority of law and without following the due process of law.

JAHAGIRDAR J. :- This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge a notice dated 29th of January 1972, the contents of which would be shortly noticed, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence in the circumstances which will be clear as we proceed to narrate the facts. The property involved is a piece of land situated at 17. Right Flank Lines in Poona Cantonment and measuring 0.85 acres equivalent to 4100 sq. metres. On the said land is also situated a bungalow. The petitioner is at present the owner of the said property viz. the land and the building as a trustee. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the land included in the property is of freehold tenure and it had been purchased by his father Temulji Anklesaria, on 19th of Sept. 1918 from one Abdul Kader who himself had become the full owner of the land by virtue of succession. It is unnecessary to refer in any detail to the history prior to 1918 because it is not relevant for the disposal of the points which have been raised in this petition. The petitioner has challenged the abovementioned notice because the said notice informs the petitioner that the property is held by the petitioner on old grant terms under which the Government were entitled to resume the same. In exercise of this right of resumption purporting to be possessed by the Government, the notice informs the petitioner that on expiration of one month from the date of the service of the notice all rights, easements and interests which the petitioner may possess in the land as well as buildings standing thereupon shall cease from that date. By the same notice the petitioner was also informed that the Government were prepared to pay and offer a sum of Rs. 29596/- as the value of the authorised erections standing on the said land. In fact a cheque for that amount was sent along with the said notice and it is admitted before us that the petitioner has accepted that cheque, though under protest. The petitioner was further informed that if the amount of compensation offered by the Government in that notice was not acceptable to him, a Committee "as contemplated in the abovementioned old grant terms" will be convened on hearing from the petitioner to determine the value of the authorised erection. In other words, this notice tells the petitioner that with effect from one month after the service of the notice upon him, he shall cease to have right, title or interest in the property. It is this notice which has been challenged by the petitioner as being without any authority of law.

2. Before we consider the various contentions, it may also be noted that by an agreement of lease dated 19th of Oct. 1929 between the petitioner's father as the owner of the said property and the Secretary of State, the petitioner's father granted a lease of the said property to the Government of India for a period of five years from Nov. 1929 on a rent of Rs. 110/- p.m. There is no dispute that in pursuance of the said lease deed the Government of India did pay the rent from time to time. The Government retained occupation of the said property under the said lease till the end of 1934 though it has also been mentioned that for a short period in 1935 the Government had again occupied the property under a monthly lease. Subsequently by an agreement dated 19th of April 1940 between the then trustees of the said property, who included the petitioner, as the owners of the property and the Governor General in Council, a lease descried as "Repairing Lease" of the property, was given to the Government for a period of five years commencing from 20th February 1939. It has been called repairing lease because under it the lessee was to repair the buildings at his own expense and to restore the property on termination of the said lease in the same condition in which it was let out to him. Though the lease expired by efflux of time, the Government of India continued to be in occupation of the