A transfer of government leasehold land carried out in violation of mandatory lease conditions, specifically the failure to obtain prior permission from the competent authority, is void and conveys no legal title to the transferee.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and order dated 08.10.2024 and the decree dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional City Civil Judge, Court No.14, in Civil Suit No.485 of 2017, whereby the suit filed by the present appellant came to be dismissed which was instituted by the appellant seeking a declaration that the respondents are unauthorized occupants and trespassers of the suit property, and for a direction to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, along with mesne profits at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month with effect from 01.09.2011 until the date of vacating the suit premises.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as under:

2.1. The present appellant is the original plaintiff, and the respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in their original status. Respondent No.1 was granted land bearing Registration No.3342/A-2, admeasuring 444.4 square yards, situated at Shahpur Ward, Ahmedabad City, Sheet No.50 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”), by the Government of Gujarat under a lease deed dated 08.06.1961, which was produced on record at Exhibits 64 and 85. As per the terms of the lease deed, the lessee was entitled to undertake construction upon the said land and was also at liberty to sell, assign, or otherwise transfer its rights under the lease to a transferee. Respondent No.1 is Ahmedabad Rifle Association Cooperative Society Limited, represented through its Chairman, Secretary, and President. The building belonging to Respondent No.1, known as the “Gun House”, was resolved to be sold by passing Resolution No.9 dated 30.09.2000. The said resolution stipulated that possession of the front portion of the premises would be handed over to the plaintiff within 12 months, and that Respondent No.1 would make alternative arrangements for shifting its operations. Thereafter, another resolution dated 08.09.2002 was passed resolving to sell the building to the plaintiff, in view of the fact that Respondent No.1 had purchased premises in Navrangpura Classic Chambers. The rear portion of the building was thereafter handed over to the plaintiff, and by Resolution dated 22.01.2011, it was acknowledged that possession of the Gun House had been handed over to the appellant. The defendants shifted their goods and materials from the Gun House situated on the ground floor to the newly acquired premises at Classic Chambers. During the transitional period, upon the request of Respondent No.1, they were permitted to temporarily use the premises on license basis, as their license for running the business of arms was awaited. By the end of April 2011, the defendants had shifted almost all furniture and fixtures and ceased occupying the ground floor premises having an area of approximately 177 square yards. Subsequently, Defendant No.1, through its power of attorney holder, executed a registered sale deed dated 17.08.2011 bearing Sr. No.3899 in favour of the plaintiff. However, according to the plaintiff, despite having shifted their belongings earlier, the defendants attempted to bring back goods and materials to the premises. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.1974 of 2011 on 29.08.2011, wherein a Court Commissioner was appointed and a Panchnama was drawn. The Court granted an order of status quo by way of interim injunction. After completion of two years from the filing