Point of Law : Tenant - Unauthorized occupation of Property - Possession of - Possession can be resumed by government only in a manner known to or recognised by law and it cannot resume possession otherwise than in due course of law.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.01.2021, passed by learned Writ Court in WP(C) No.1568/2020 titled Kanta Wazir v. Union of India and another, whereby the writ petition of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) has been dismissed.

2. Before coming to the issues involved in this appeal, let us give a brief background of the facts leading to the filing of the appeal.

3. Land measuring 15 kanals, 2 marlas and 136½ sqft. Falling under survey No.16 Badami Bagh Cantonment known as “Nalanda House” was leased out by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir in favour of original lessee, namely, Shri K. N. Raina on 25.10.1920. It appears that vide sale deed dated 30.01.1958, the original lessee, Shri K. N. Raina, sold this property through his power of attorney holder, to Shri T. C. Wazir, the father-in-law of the writ petitioner. This transfer of lease hold rights was backed by the sanction of respondents in terms of letter No.11203-L/LNC/60/3627/L/D(C&L) Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, dated 05.07.1962. Thus, father-in-law of the writ petitioner, by virtue of the aforesaid transfer, stepped into the shoes of original lessee and became a lessee of the respondents in relation to the aforesaid premises.

4. The writ petitioner claims that after the expiry of Shri T. C. Wazir, his son, Shri Manmohan Wazir, who happens to be the husband of the petitioner, inherited leasehold rights in respect of the property in question in terms of decree dated 18.10.1979 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Srinagar, in a suit titled Manmohan Wazir v. Smt. Chander Mohani Wazir. The writ petitioner further claims that her husband made extensive renovations in the aforesaid property and has paid all the taxes including property tax, water and electricity charges in respect of the property in question.

5. The further case set up by the writ petitioner before the learned Writ Court was that in the year 1990, on account of outbreak of militancy in Kashmir Valley, she along with her family had to leave the State where-after her husband, namely, Manmohan Wazir expired on 04.02.2018. The writ petitioner is stated to have applied for renewal of lease vide her letter dated 23.10.2019 as, according to her, lease in respect of the land in question was issued for a period of 99 years with effect from 25.10.1920.

6. It was contended that the respondents without considering her request for renewal of lease, issued resumption notice dated 21.08.2020, which was never served upon her. It appears that initially the writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid notice of resumption through the medium of writ petition but later on, when the resumption order dated 16th of October, 2020, was issued by the respondents, challenge was also thrown to the same by filing an application before the Writ Court by the writ petitioner.

7. The respondents resisted the petition by filing a reply thereto, wherein it has been averred that the land in question is under the management of Defence Estate Officer, Srinagar. It is claimed that the land in question was held by Pandit K. N. Raina on Wasidari lease for a period of 40 years w.e.f 25.10.1920. The transfer of leasehold rights in respect of the land in question from original lessee, Shri K. N. Raina, in favour of Shri T. C. Wazir in terms of letter dated 05.07.1962 of Government of India, Ministry of Defence, has been admitted by the respondents. It is claimed that upon expiry of lease on 24.10.1960, the same was renewed for a further period of nine years w.e.f 24.10.1960 and thereafter there was no further renewal of the lease. Respondents have taken a stand that after 23.10.1969, the land in question remained in occupation of the petitioner and her predecessors-in-interest illegally and unauthorizedly.

8. It has been claimed that the sanction for resumption of the property in question was granted on 05.11.1979 f