- (1.)Defendants are the Petitioners before us and they are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16th of December, 2011 of the High Court of Guwahati in Second Appeal No. 1 of 2010, reversing the judgment and decree of affirmance and granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants-Petitioners from interfering with the possession and title of the Plaintiff-Respondent over Bungalow No. 18, hereinafter referred to as "the suit land".
(2.)According to the Plaintiff, the suit land comprises Bungalow No. 18, lying on a plot measuring 4.261 acres within the Shillong Military Cantonment area. Plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner thereof on the basis of a Will dated 6th of December, 1980 executed by Late St. John Perry. The probate of the Will was granted by the District Judge, Shillong by an order dated 26th of June, 1987 and, according to the Plaintiff, it had become final as no appeal was preferred against the said order. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the Plaintiff approached Defendant No. 2, D.E.O., Guwahati Circle for mutation of the suit land in his name in the General Land Register (for short "GLR"). Plaintiff was asked to fill up a pro-forma declaration form, inter alia, admitting the proprietary rights of the Government of India over the property and their right to resume the same as a condition for mutation. This was refused by the Plaintiff. It is further case of the Plaintiff that soon thereafter, on 12th of December, 1986, a notice was served on him by the Ministry of Defence, intimating him of their decision to resume the suit land and asking him to deliver the possession to Defendant No. 2 within a month. The Plaintiff was thereafter served with a show cause notice dated 23rd of March, 1993 by Defendant No. 3, the Station Commander, Eastern Headquarter, Shillong, informing him that a Committee of Officers had determined the compensation payable to him at Rs. 1,72,094/- on account of resumption of the suit land and to file reply by 19th of April, 1993, failing which it would be assumed that he had no objection to the order of resumption. This determination of compensation payable, according to the Plaintiff, was done without giving him an opportunity of hearing. It is in these circumstances that Plaintiff instituted Title suit No. 5(H) of 1993 before the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong for a declaration that the order of resumption dated 23rd of March, 1993 is illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and not binding on him and for permanent injunction, prohibiting the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff in any manner.
(3.)On the other hand, the case of the Defendants is that the suit land was settled with the British Government in 1863 under the Bengal Army Regulation, upon which the Cantonment was established. The suit land was originally granted free of rent to Mr. G.H. James in the year 1880 as "old grants". Mr. James transferred the suit land to Mr. L.H. Musgrave in 1932, who further transferred it by way of a Will to Mrs. G.M. De La Nonger in 1939. On the death of Mrs. G.M. De La Nonger, the suit land was transferred to St. John Perry-vide Will dated 29th of May, 1980. The Plaintiff came to occupy the suit land pursuant to a Will executed by Late St. John Perry, bequeathing the said land to the Plaintiff. It is the case of the Defendants that since the land held under old grants is resumable, the occupancy holder is required to admit the title of the Government at the time of mutation. It is in these circumstances that St. John Perry had executed an admission deed dated 13th of May, 1982, duly stamped and registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Shillong, bearing Serial No. 3046, admitting the title of the Government over the suit land and their right of resumption. Similar admission deeds had been executed by the predecessors-in-interest of St. John Perry and hence the holder of the suit land only had occupancy rights in the property as a grantee. The Defendants disputed the title of the Plaintiff over the suit land, barring the authorized structures, which vested in him by virtue of the probate granted to the Will of Late St. John Perry. It is further case of the Defendants that the suit land was required for bona fide defence use and, hence, a resumption order dated 23rd of March, 1993 was served on the Plaintiff. The amount of compensation for the authorised structures was re-examined at the prevalent market rate and computed at Rs. 1,72,094/-. The Plaintiff was also offered an alternative site for accommodation.