A bare licensee without any right to or interest in the land cannot claim that the Government should have filed a suit against him or resorted to the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 and 1971.

( 1 ) UBI jus Ibi remedium save the maxim. If so, the converse should also be true. namely. "where there is no right; there is no remedy. " It is also equally true that even where right exists it has to be enforced in due course of law. It cannot be enforced by self-help without recourse to law. No body can be allowed to take the law into his own hands. If, therefore, a person without right to a property is dispossessed by the owner thereof directly and without recourse to judicial machinery, can the former successfully challenge the legality of the dispossession ? This question which arises frequently in courts has to be decided in the light of the above principles which may appear to be conflicting but would be found to be reconcilable.

( 2 ) SHRI Raj Singh through his predecessors-in-title held a plot, of land in Meerut Cantonment on what are known as the "old grant" terms, A house has been built on the plot. He purchased the house in 1941 for Rupees 14000. 00. On 4th November 1970, however, he received the impugned notice in the following terms:

"whereas the land. . . . . . belongs to the President of India and is held by you on old grant terms under which Government are entitled to resume the said land. And whereas the Government have decided to resume possession of the said land and to obtain possession of the structures now standing thereon. . . . . . . . . Now in exercise of the power hereinbefore mentioned the Government give you this notice to quit and deliver possession of the aforesaid building site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at 10 A. M. on 18th December 1970 to the Military Estates Officer. Meerut Cantonment failing which Government will under all powers enabling them in that behalf resume on the said date. . . . . . . . . . . . the possession of the aforesaid property and your occupation and any rights, easements and interests you may have in the said land as also in the buildings standing thereon shall thereupon cease as from that date. Take notice further that the Government are prepared to pay and so offer you the sum of Rs. 407. 00 as the value of the erections standing on the said land. In case the amount of compensation is not acceptable to you. you are at liberty, if you so desire, to remove the structures so as to leave the land in the safe condition in which it was before the erections. "shri Rai Singh regretted on 25th November 1970 that the possession of the property could not be handed over and returned the cheque of Rs. 407. 00 because (a) the compensation offered was very inadequate and (b) the resumption of the property was not shown to be for a public purpose. But the possession of the land and the house was taken by the Govern nent on the 18th of December 1970 as previously intimated peaceably in the absence of Shri Rai Singh. On 4th April 1971: thereafter Shri Rai Singh filed a writ petition for quashing the impugned notice and for an order to the Government to pay fair compensation to him for the house and also directing the Government to grant him a lease of the said land in place of the old grant terms on which it was held. He did not, however, seek to recover the possession of the land and the house from the Government

( 3 ) THE writ petition was heard by Sachar J. before whom the following grounds were urged in its support by the petitioner:

(1) That the power of resumption given to the Government by the old grant terms was since then circumscribed by the subsequent decision of the President taken on the 20th March 1970 laving down that the land could be resumed only for a public purpose. (2) The Government had no right to take the law into its own hands and should not have. therefore taken possession directly from the petitioner without recourse to law. (3) The possession of the land could be taken only by paying value of the building thereon. The compensation offered for the building is inadequate. Pending the determination of the compensation. possession of the property