Pathak, J. - (1.) ON April 30, 1958 the respondents purchased from Messrs. Dost Mohammad Private Limited the property described as No. 45 Tagore Road situated in the Cantoment at Kanpur. It comprises of a bungalow and land. The building site on which the bungalow stands, is referred to as survey No. 100. Admittedly, the lease or written grant under which survey No. 100 was given is not traceable. But it is recorded in the General Land Register as "occupancy land on old grant terms".
(2.) ON May 19, 1958 the respondents applied to the Cantoment Authorities for mutation of their names, but before the request was granted the respondents we_re required to admit that the land comprised in the property belonged to the Government. On September 13, 1961 the property was mutated in the names of the respondents and on September 15, 1961 the respondents executed a deed admitting that the site appurtenant to the property and forming its compound belonged to the Government of India and was held by them subjectto the conditions, Limitations and disabilities laid down in the Governor General's Order No. 179 dated September 12, 1836. The respondents, anxious to obtain a lease of the land in their favour from the Cantoment Authorities, wrote in January 1966 for a blank form of the application set out in Schedule V of the Cantoment Land Administration Rules, 1937 for the purpose of applying for a lease of land. The Military Estates Officer, Lucknow, directed the issue of such form. On April 12, 1966, however, the respondents wrote to the Military Estates Officer stating that they were owners of the bungalow, that the property was recorded in the General Land Register as "occupancy land on old grant terms", that no written document denning the rights of the Government was available and, therefore, the respondents' occupation be regularized by the execution of a lease in accordance with Rule 27 in the form set out in Schedule 7. The Military Estates Officer taking the view that the respondents, by applying for a blank form in Schedule 5, wanted the grant of a fresh lease, took no action on this application. On August 27, 1966 the respondents wrote to the Minister for Defence Government of India, praying for a lease under Rule 27 in the form set out in Schedule 7, but inexplicably again applied to the Military, Estates Officer on October 15, 1966 for a blank form of the application set out in Schedule 5. On October 25, 1966 the Military Estates Officer sent the form and informed the respondents that "this also disposes of the letter dated 12-4-1966". Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence informed the respondents that the Government was prepared to grant them a lease under Rule 28 in the form set out in Sche dule 8 but was not prepared to grant a lease under Rule 27, Considerable corres pondence ensued. The Ministry of Defence, however, remained firm. On February 28, 1967 the respondents sent a formal notice calling upon the Military Estates Officer, Lucknow and the Govern ment of India, in the Ministry of Defence, to grant a lease under Rule 27. There being no satisfactory response, the respondents then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for im mandamus directing the appellants to execute a lease under Rule 27.
(3.) THE petition came on for hearing before Satish Chandra, J. He allowed the petition and directed the grant of a lease under Rule 27.;