Holding

The land in the cantonment is held on an "old grant" basis, and the General Land Register conclusively establishes this tenure, permitting the authority to resume the land and reject the respondents' claim of ownership.

Summary

The case concerned a bungalow and land in Sagar Cantonment that were recorded in the General Land Register as held on an "old grant" basis. The respondents purchased the property through four sale deeds, later amending the description from lease‑hold to old‑grant, and began construction without obtaining the required permission from the Military Estate Officer. The appellants, the Chief Executive Officer, issued a notice under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act and sought resumption of the land, arguing that the land remained government property subject to resumption. The Supreme Court examined whether the land was indeed held on old‑grant tenure, whether the General Land Register could establish the nature of the grant in the absence of the original grant document, and whether the authority could lawfully resume the land and restrain unauthorised construction. It held that the land was held on old‑grant tenure, that the register was conclusive evidence of this, and that the appellants were entitled to resume the land, dismissing the respondents' suit.

Issues considered

Whether the land in Sagar Cantonment is held on an "old grant" tenure under the Bengal Regulations of 1836 and the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925.
Whether the General Land Register maintained under the Rules is admissible evidence of the nature of the grant in the absence of the original grant document.
Whether the respondents, having purchased the bungalow, acquired ownership rights or merely occupancy rights requiring prior sanction for transfer.
Whether the appellants are empowered to issue a notice under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and to resume the land.
Whether the respondents' unauthorised construction without permission justifies the resumption action.

Legislation cited

Cantonments Act, 1924s. 185, s. 274, s. 280

Subjects

old grantcantonment landland resumptiongeneral land registerunauthorised constructionleasehold vs old grantCantonments ActBengal Regulations 1836

Judgment

A CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
v.
SURENDERA KUMAR VAKIL AND ORS.

MARCH 23, 1999

B -
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]
I
.,

Bengal Regulations of 1836 :

Land in cantonme~t area given on 'old grant' basis by Authority-
C Regulation of-Held, the terms of the grant are statutorily regulated under
Order No. 179 of the Governor Genefal in Council of 1836, knqwn as the
Bengal Regulations of 1836, and the administration of land in cantonment
areas is further regulated by the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the Cantonment
Land Administration Rules, 1925 framed under it.

D Bengal Regulations of 1836-Regulation 6-Land/in cantonment area
given on old grant basis-Contravention of terms of the grant by dividing the
site and sale of building situated on the land without prior sanction of the
competent authority to persons not belonging to army-Held, land can be
resumed by the authority in accordance with law.
E Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925-Rule 3-Person filing
suit for declaration of title of land in cantonment area-No conveyance in
respect of the said lands produced by the person-Authority adducing
evidence to show that the file/register. of grants has been stolen-General
land registers maintained by the authority under the Rules show that land
F is held on old grant basis-Held, the Regulations as well as the general
land registers which are old documents maintained in the regular course
and coming from proper custody, clearly indicate that the land is held on
old grant basis.

Words & Phrases- 'Old Grant '-Meaning of in the context of Bengal
G Regulations of 1836 and the Cantonments Act, 1924.
The present appeal pertains to a land and a bungalow on it, situated
in Sagar Cantonment and under the management of Defence Estate
Officer, Jabalpur Circle, Jabalpur. The bungalow was purchased by one S.N.
and his wife, from one P.M. The terms of the sale deed did not disclose the
H nature of rights possessed by P.M. over the land. The property is shown as
118
C.E.O. v. SURENDERA KUMAR VAKIL AND ORS. 119
held on 'old grant' basis and stands in the name of S.N. as per the General A
Land Register maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules,
1925. After the death ofS.N., his legal heirs without applying for mutation
of the property in their names, sold the entire bungalow to the respondents
vide four registered sale deeds. In the sale deeds the property was described
as leasehold land of the Cantonment Board and it was provided that the
purchasers would have to abide by the terms and conditions on which the land B
was held, and that the purchasers would have the same rights which the
sellers were having. One S obtained power of attorney from both the vendors
as well as the vendees for dealing and taking all proceedings in connection
with the said bungalow. Thereafter by four amendment (admission) deeds the
description of the land was changed from 'lease hold type' to 'old grant type. C
S addressed a letter to the Military Estate Officer, Jabalpur Cantonment
requesting him to enter in his records the transfer of the said bungalow in
the names of the respondents.

The Military Estate Officer issued a show cause notice to the vendors
as well as the vendees for resumption of the site for contravention of the D
' terms of the grant for division of land and sale of the building comprised
therein without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority as the
land was held on 'old grant' terms. Reply was given to the notice stating that
the sellers have only transferred the occupancy rights in respects of the
bungalow which they were having as per the terms of the 'old grant'; that E
the sellers were not aware that prior permission of the Military Estate
officer was required before such sale and sought pardon for this unintentional
lapse; and stated, inter alia, the reason for executing four sale deeds instead
of one in respect of the building. The amendment/admission deeds were
cancelled by cancellation deed and thereafter supplemental deeds were
executed setting out that purchasers would have the same rights as the F
predecessor of sellers had over the said building. Pursuant to a letter by the
Cantonment Estate Officer, S submitted building application/plans for
construction work on the said property. However, construction work started
wJthout waiting for permission from the authorities. Despite rejection of
building plans by the authority, the construction work continued and a notice G
was issued by the appellants under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act,

,
1924 advising S to desist from raising any unauthorised construction on the
property. Appeal filed by Sand others under Section 274 of the Cantonments
Act was dismissed by the appellate authority.

Thereafter, the respondents filed a civil suit for peaceful enjoyment of H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A the property without any interruption from the appellants and their agents
which was subsequently amended seeking declaration of title over the said
land. The suit was decreed by the trial court. Against the order of the trial
Court, ~he appellants's appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the
ground that the terms of the grant have not been established because the
B document of grant itself was not produced by the appellants. Hence, this
appeal
The contention of the appellant was that the land was held on 'old
grant' basis. The respondents contended that since evidence for the old grant
was not produced by the appellants, the case of the appellants that the land
C in question was held on old grant basis was not proved; and that any admission
made by them in ignorance of leg~I rights cannot bind them.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1. Grant of land in cantonment areas was, at all material
times, governed by the general order of the Governor General in
D Council bearing No. 179 of the year 1836, known a~ the Bengal Regulations
of 1836. Under Regulation 6 of these Regulations, conditions of occupancy
of lands in cantonments are laid down. Thereunder, no ground will be granted
except on the conditions set out therein which are to be subscribed.to by
every grantee as well as by those to whom his grant may be subsequently
E transferred. [124-G-H)

Raj Singh v. The Union of India and Others., AIR (1973) Delhi 159,
UOI v. Tek Chand Civil Appeal No. 3525 of 1983 decided by SC on 5th
January, 1999, relied on.

p Cantonment Laws by JP. Mittal, 2nd Edition, relied on.

1.2. The tenures under which permission was given to civilians to
occupy Government land in the cantonments for construction ofbungakows
on the condition of a right of resumption of the ground, if required, came
to be know as old grant tenures. (126-B-C)
G
2. Under Section 280 of th~ Cantonments Act, 1924, power was given
to the Governor General in Council to make rules for the purpose of carrying
out the objects of the Act. In exercise of this power, the Cantonment Land
Administration Rules, 1925 have been framed. The administration of lands
in cantonment areas is regulated by the Cantonment Act. 1924 and the
H Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925. Under Rule 3 of these.
,
C.E.O. v. SURENDERAKUMAR VAKIL AND ORS. 121
Cantonment Land Administration Rules, the Military Estates Officer of the A
cantonment shall prepare and maintain a general land register of all land
in the cantonment in the form prescribed in Schedule I and no addition or
alteration thereto shall be made except as provided therein. Under the Rules,
general land registers are being maintained in respect of Sagar Cantonment.

, The general land registers maintained under the Cantonment Land
Administration Rules, 1925 have been produced which support the contention
of the appellants that the land is held on old grant basis. They bear the
endorsement of the officer who has maintained these registers in the regular
course. It is true that the appelhtnts were also required to maintain a file/
B

register of grants. They have not produced the file. The appellants have also
led evidence to show that the file containing grant in respect of the said C
property is not available because it has been stolen. The respondents filed
a suit claiming title over the land. If any conveyance in respect of the land
had been executed at any time by the State/Military Estate Officer, the
Conveyance ought to have b~en produced by the person in whose favour it had
been executed or his successor in title. The respondents have not produced
any document of title pertaining to the said land or showing the nature of D
their rights over the said land except for the sale deeds. There is, therefore,
no document before the court which would show that the respondents were
the absolute owners of the said land. The Regulations as well as the general
land registers which are old documents maintained in the regular course
and coming from proper custody, clearly indicate that the land is held on old E
grant basis. It is, therefore, not a case where the appellants had not produced
any evidence in support of their contention that the land in the cantonment
area was held on old grant basis.
(126-C-H; 127-F-H; 128-B-D; 129-H; 130-A-B]

Union of India v. Purshotam Dass Tandon and another, (1986) Supp. F
sec 720, held inapplicable.
4.1. Since the land is held on old grant basis, the appellants are
entitled to resume the land in accordance with law. (130-E)

4.2. The action of the appellants in issuing notice to the respondents G
to desist from raising any further construction on the land cannot also be
faulted. Section 185 of Cantonments Act, 1924 provides so and the Board
also had power to direct the alteration or demolition of such unauthorised
structure. (129-A-B)

4.3. The contention of the respondents that any admission made by H
1

122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1
[1999] 2 S.C.R.
I

A them in ignorance of legal rights cannot bind them does not help them
because the respondents have taken a changing stand in relatit .1 to the
nature of their rights over the disputed land. (130-B-C)

Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR (1976)
SC 376, cited.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8484 of 1997
Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.97 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in F.A. No. 319 of 1994.
c
Arvind Kr. Sharma for S.U.K. Sagar for the Appellants in C.A. No. 8484/.
87 for the Respondent in C.A. No. 3323/98.

A.S. Nambiar, Ms. A. Subhashini, Ms. Anubha Jain, (Ms. Neera Gupta)
for Ms. Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.
D
K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi and A.P. Jain for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. These appeals pertain to a property
E admeasuring 11.37 acres comprising Survey No.392 and known as Bungalow
No.39, Sagar Cantonment. As per the General Land Register maintained
under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules of 1925, the said ·property
is shown as held on 'old grant' terms and stands in the name of Shri S. N.
Mukherjee. The site is described as B-3 land and is placed under the
F management of Defence Estate Officer, Jabalpur Circle, Jabalpur.

According to the respondents, by a sale deed dated 27th of September,
1927, S. N. Mukherjee and his wife, Sarjubala Devi, purchased the said
property together with the adjoining Bungalow No.40 from one Pandit
Murlidhar Dubey. The terms of the sale deed, however, do not disclose the
G nature of the rights possessed by Dubey over the land comprising Bungalow
Nos.39 and 40.

S.N. Mukherjee who was the occupancy holder as recorded in the
General Land Register died in the year 1972 leaving behind 11 legal heirs.
Bungalow No.39 which is the subject matter of the present appeals, however,
H was not mutated in the names of the legal heirs since they did not apply for
C.E.0. v. SURENDERAKUMARVAKILANDORS. (SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.] 123
mutation. By four registered sale deeds dated 26.2.1983, the heirs of S. N. A
Mukherjee sold the entire property consisting Bungalow No.39 in favour of
24 persons who are the respondents. One Gopal Das Soni obtained power of
attorney from both the vendors as well as the vendees for dealing with the
said property and taking all proceedings in connection with it.

In the said sale deeds the property was described as leasehold land of B
the Cantonment Board and it was stated that the purchasers will have to abide
by the terms and conditions on which this land was held in the name of the
ancestors of the sellers. It was further pr6vided that the purchasers will have
the same rights which the sellers were having on the place sold to them.
Thereafter by four amendment (admission) deeds dated 4/5.8.1983, the power C
of attorney holder on behalf of the Vendors stated that in the said sale deeds,
due to a typograph~cal error, the land was shown as leasehold type whereas
it should have been described as 'old grant' type. Therefore, by the amendment
deeds the said description was being changed to 'old grant' type.

By his letter dated 26.8.1983 addressed to the Military Estate Officer, D
, Jabalpur Cantonment, the power-of-attorney holder informed the Military
Estate Officer that Bungalow No.39, Survey No. 392, Sagar Cantonment, was
held in the name of S.N. Mukherjee. He had died on 13. 7.1972 leaving behind
11 legal heirs as set out therein and that the said legal heirs had sold the said
property in favour of 24 respondents (whose names were set out in the letter) E
by virtue of 4 sale deeds of 26th of February, 1983. By the said letter he
requested that the above named Bungalow No.39 may be transferred in the
records of the Military Estate Officer, in the names of the purchasers. Thereafter
correspondence ensued between the parties. The Military Estate Officer on
3.10.1983 issued a notice to the Vendors as well as the Vendees stating therein
that the said area is held on 'old grant' terms in the name of S.N. Mukherjee F
in the records maintained in his office. He further stated that the Vendors
divided the entire land into four portions without obtaining the prior sanction
of the competent authority in contravention of the terms of the grant on
which the site was held and that the sale in favour of the purchasers was also
without obtaining the prior sanction of the competent authority and in G
contravention of the terms of the grant, which would attract action for
resumption of the site. The notice asked the purchasers as well as the sellers
to show cause why action for resumption of the site be not taken against
them. In his reply dated 15.10.1983 the power-of-attorney holder stated that
as per the terms of the 'old grant' the sellers were having occupancy rights
in respect of Bungalow No.39 and, therefore, the sellers have transferred H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R.

A those rights to the purchasers. The sellers were not aware that prior permission
of the Military Estate Officer was required before such sale; otherwise they
would not have sold the bungalow without obtaining prior permission. He ·
-
asked for pardon for this unintentional lapse and stated, inter alia, the reason
for executing four sale deeds instead of one.

B By cancellation deed dated 30. l 0.1984 the parties cancelled the
amendment/admission deeds of 4/5.8.1983. Supplemental deeds of 18.6.1985 -
were also thereafter executed setting out that the purchasers would have the
same rights as S.N. Mukherjee had over the said property.

The Cantonment Estate Officer; Sagar, by his letter dated 28.12.1984
C advised the power-of-attorney holder-Soni to submit building plans and
obtain permission for construction work on the said property. However,
according to the appellants, Soni started construction work without wajting
for permission. The building application/plans which were submitted by Soni,
were sent by the Cantonment Ex~cutive Officer to the Defence Estate Officer,
D Jabalpur. But the same were returned duly rejected on 6.3.1985. Despite
rejection, according to the appellants, Soni continued the construction work.
Ultimately, a notice was issued by the appellants on 15.4.1985 to Soni_ advising
him to desist from raising any unauthorised construction in the said premises.
An appeal filed by Soni and others under Section 274 of the Cantonment Act,
1924 before the appellate authority was dismissed by the appellate authority
E on 28.8.1985.

Thereafter the purchasers filed the present civil suit in the court of the
Additional District Judge, Sagar, praying that they be allowed to enjoy the
property peacefully without any interruption from the appellants and their
F agents. The prayer was subsequently amended and a declaration of title over
. the said land was asked for by the purchasers. The suit has been decreed by
the trial court and the first appeal has been dismissed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh.

The narrow question is whether the land was held by S.N. Mukherjee
G on old grant basis or not. The land is in the Cantonment area of Sagar. Grant
of land in cantonment areas was, at all material ti.. ies, governed by the
r
general order of the Governor General in Council bearing No.179 of the
year 1836, known as the Bengal Regulations of 1836. Under Regulation 6 of
these Regulations, conditions of occupancy of lands in cantonments are laid
-
down. Thereunder, no ground will be granted except on the conditions set out
H therein which are to be subscribed to by every grantee as well as by those
C.E.O. v. SURENDERAKUMARVAKILANDORS. [SUJATAV. MANOHAR,J.] 125
to whom his grant may be subsequently transferred. The first condition A
relates to resumption of land. (1) The Government retains the power of
resumption at any time on giving one month's notice and paying the value of
such buildings as may have been authorised to be erected. (2) The ground
being in every case the property of the Government, cannot be sold by the
grantee. But houses or other property thereon situated may be transferred by
one Military or Medical O(ficer to another without restriction except in B
certain cases. (3) If the ground has been built upon, the buildings are not to
be disposed of to any person of whatever description who does not belong
to the army until the consent of the officer commanding the Station shall
have been previously obtained under his hand.

The High Court in its impugned judgment has reproduced extracts from C
the book on Cantonment Laws by J.P. Mittal, 2nd Edition at page 3, which
may well be reproduced here:-
'
"Besides municipal administration, another subject that has always
loomed large on the Cantonment horizon, is the auestion of provision D
of necessary accommodation for military officers. near the place of
their duty. This led to the issue, from time to time, of certain rules,
regulations, and orders by the Government of Bengal, Madras and
Bombay presidencies between the years of 1789 and 1899. The
regulations were mostly of an identical nature. They had a two-fold
object in view, that of ensuring sufficient accommodation for military E
officers; and that of regulation of the grant of land sites. Some of
these regulations are published in this Book. These rules, regulations
and orders continue to be the law in force in India even after the
enforcement of the British statutes (Application to India) Repeal
Act, 1960, (AIR 1973 Delhi 169, AIR 1979 ALL 170). F
Under these regulations and orders, officers not provided with Govt.
quarters were allowed to erect houses in the cantonment. For this
purpose ground was allotted to them with the condition that no right
of propriety whatever in the ground was conferred on them and the
ground continued to be the property of the State was resumable at G
the pleasure of the Govt. by giving one month's notice and paying
the value of the structures as may have been authorised to be erected.
The houses or other property built on such grounds were allowed to
be transferred by one military officer to another without restrictions.
To civilians these could be transferred only with the prior permission
of the officer commanding the station. H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A With the lapse of time civilians were also encouraged to build
bungalows on the Govt. land in the cantonment on the same condition
of resumption of the ground as given above and with a further
condition that they may be required to rent or sell the same to any
military officer. In case of disagreement about the rent or the sale price
the same was to be fixed by a committee of arbitration. These tenures
B under which permission was given to occupy govt. land in the
cantonments for construction of bungalows came to be known as 'old
grant'. Such permission was given mostly on payment of no rent. This
is how a large number of bungalows in the cantonments all over India
came in the hands of civilians."
c
Under Section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, power was given to
the Governor General in Council to make rules for the purpose ofcarrying
out the objects of the Cantonments Act, 1924. In particular, these rules
could provide for: (a) The manner in which and the authority to which
application for permission to occupy land belonging to the Government in
D a cantonment is to be made; (b) The authority by which such permission may
be granted and the conditions to be annexed to the grant of any such
permission. In the exercise of this power, the Cantonment Land
Administration Rules, 1925 have been framed. These Rules as amended upto
21.12.1935 are produced before us. Under Rule 3 of these Cantonment
E Land Administration Rules the Military Estates Officer of the cantonment
shall prepare and maintain a general land register of all land in the cantonment
in the form prescribed in Schedule I and no addition or alteration thereto
shall be made except as provided therein. Under Rule 4 of the Rules in force
in 1936, the Military Estate Officer was required to maintain a Register of
Mutation in which every transfer ofright or interest in land in the cantonment
F which necessitated an alteration of the entries in any of the columns of the
general land register, was entered. Under Rule 5 as then in force, every fifth
year the general land register shall be rewritten so as to include all changes
in the rights or interest in land and a fresh register of mutation shall be
opened simultaneously. Under Rule 6, for the purpose of the general land
G register, land in the cantonment is divided into class A land, class B land and
class C land. Rules 7 and 8 deal with these different categories of land.

Under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1925 general land
registers are being maintained in respect of Sagar Cantonment. These registers
were produced before the High Court and were also produced before us.
H These are old registers maintained in the form prescribed by the said Rules.
C.E.O. v. SURENDERAKUMARVAKILANDORS. [SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.] 127
In these registers the property in question is shown as being held by S.N. A
Mukherjee on old grant basis. As explained by Mittal in the passage cited
above, the tenures under which permission was given to civilians to occupy
Government land in the cantonments for construction of bungalows on the
condition of a right of resumption of the ground, if required, came to be know
as old grant tenures. Such tenures were given in accordance with the terms B
of the order No.179 issued by the Governor General in Council in the year
1836. These require that the ownership of land shall remain with the Government
and the land cannot be sold by the grantee. Only the house or other property
thereon may be transferred. Such transfers would require consent of the
officer commanding the station when the transfer is to a person not belonging
to the army. In respect of old grant tenure, therefore, the Government retains C
the right of resumption of land.

In the case of Sh. Raj Singh v. The Union of India and Ors., AIR (1973)
Delhi 169, the Delhi High Court examined the Regulations contained in order
No.179 of 1836 regarding the grant of lands situated in cantonment areas and
held that the Regulations were a self-contained provision prescribing the D
manner of grant and resumption of land in cantonment areas. It held that the
petitioner therein being a mere occupier of the land under the said Regulations,
he was in the position of a licensee whose licence under the grant and under
the law was revocable at the pleasure of the licensor. This judgment of the
Delhi High Court was approved by this Court in Union of India v. Tek Chand E
(Civil Appeal No. 3525 of 1983) by its judgment and order dated 5th of
January, 1999 passed by S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ.

The respondent, however, contends that since the actual old grant was
not produced in evidence by the appellants the case of the appellants that the
land was held on old grant basis by Mukherjee is not proved by the appellants. . F
This submission does not appeal to us. The respondents filed a suit claiming
title over the land. If any conveyance in respect of this land had been executed
at any time by the State/Military Estate Officer in favour of Mukherjee or
his predecessor in title, the conveyance ought to have been produced by the
person in whose favour it had been executed or his successor in title. Had G
a lease been granted in respect of the said land in favour of Mukherjee or
his predecessor in title, the lessee or his successor in title should have
produced the lease deed in his favour. Any grant in favour of the grantee
would normally be in the possession of the grantee. The respondents, however,
have not produced any title deeds relating to the land in question. They have
only produced the document of sale from Dubey to Mukherjee and the four H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R..

A sale deeds from the heirs and legal representatives of Mukherjee in favour of
the purchasing respondents. In none of these documents there is a clear
recitation of the nature of the rights in the land held by the Vendor.
-
It is true that the appellants were also required to maintain a file/
B register of grants. They have not produced the file. The appellants, however,
have led evidence to show that the concerned file of grants was stolen in the
year 1985. They were, therefore, unable to produce the file pertaining to this
grant. They do, however, have in their possession general land registers
maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules of 1925 in
which they are required by these rules to maintain a record, inter alia, of the
C nature of the grant in respect of cantonment lands and the person in whose
favour such grant is made. Both these registers are very old registers. They
bear the endorsement of the officer who has maintained these registers in
the regular cours~. These registers also show any subsequent changes made
in respect of the lands under the relevant columns. Both these registers
clearly show that the land is held on· old grant basis by Mukherjee. The High
D Court seems to have rejected the record contained in the land grants registers
ori the ground that the terms of the grant have not been established because
the document of grant itself has not been produced. The terms of the grant,
however, are statutorily regulated under order No.179 of the Governor General
in Council of 1836. The administration of lands in Cantonment areas is
E further regulated by the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the Cantonment Land
Administration Rules of 1925. The 1836 Regulations expressly provide that
the title to the land in cantonment areas cannot be transferred. But only
occupancy rights can be given in respect of the land which remains capable
of being resumed by the Government in the manner set out therein. There is
no evidence to the contrary led by the respondents. In fact, ·under the
F amendment/admission deeds executed on 4/5.8.1983 the Vendors as well as
the purchasers have stated that the site is wrongly mentioned as lease hold
site instead of 'old grant' site in the four sale deeds. The mistake is being
rectified by the execution of the four amending deeds clarifying that the
Bungalow No.39 is held on 'old grant'. Undoubtedly, this was later retracted
G when cancellation deed was executed cancelling the amendment/admission
deeds. Nevertheless, all the statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
land being in the cantonment area was held by Mukherjee only as an occupant/
licensee and that any transfer of the bungalow and other constructions on
the said land required prior approval of the defence establishment. The power
of attorney holder also corresponded with the Defence establishment and
H asked for mutation in favour of the purchasers.
C.E.O. v. SURENDERAKUMAR VAKIL AND ORS. [SUJATAV. MANOHAR,J.] 129
However, even after they were expressl>1informed by the appellants of A
the need for prior permission before transfer, as well as for any further
construction on the said land, the respondents proceeded with the construction
work resulting in the notice to desist issued by the appellants under Section
I 85 of the Cantonments Act, I 924. The said section provides that the Board
may, at any time, by notice in writing, direct the owner, lessee or occupier B
of any land in the cantonment to stop the erection or re-erection of a building
in· any case in which the Board considers that such erection or re-erection
is an offence under Section 184. The Board also has power to direct the
alteration or demolition of such unauthorised structure. On the facts before
us, this action cannot be faulted.
c
The respondents drew our attention to a decision of this Court in the
case of Union ofIndia v. Purshotam Dass Tandon and another, [1986] Supp.
SCC 720, where this Court observed that the Union of India had made no
effort to establish its title and the grant had not been produced. Hence the
terms of the grant or the date of the grant were not known. Therefore, the
Union of India could not succeed in its contention that the land in the ~D
cantonment was held on old grant basis. In the present case, however, apart
from the requirements of Order No.179 of Governor General in Council, 1836,
the general land register maintained under the Cantonment Land Administration
Rules of 1925 has been produced which supports the contention of the
appellants that the land is held on old grant basis. The appellants have also E
Jed evidence to show that the file containing grant in respect of the said
property, is not available with them because it has been stolen in the year
1985. The respondents on the other hand have not produced any document
of title pertaining to the said lanct or showing the nature of the rights of the
respondents over the said land except the sale deeds referred to earlier. The
stand of the respondents relating to their rights over the said land has F
changed from time to time. In the sale deeds executed by the Vendees in
favour of the respondents, the land is described as lease hold cantonment
land. This was later changed by the respondents in the amendment deeds to
old grant land. In the suit, the respondents have contended that they have
become the absolute owners of the said land. These bare assertions do not G
carry any conviction. Had there been any conveyance or lease in respect of

- the said lands executed in favour of the respondents or their predecessor in
title, such conveyance or lease should have come from their custody. There
is, therefore, no document before the Court which would show that the
respondents were the absolute owners of the said land as now contended by
them. The Regulations as well as the general land registers, on the other hand, H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R.

A which are old documents maintained in the regular course and coming from
proper custody, clearly indicate that the land is held on old grant basis. This
is, therefore, not a case where the appellants had not produced any evidence
in support of their contention that the land in the cantonment area was held
on old grant basis by Mukherjee.

B The respondents have drawn our attention to the decision in the case
of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR (1976)
SC 376 for showing that any admission made by them in ignorance of legal
rights cannot bind them. This judgment does not help the respondents because
the fact remains that the respondents have taken a changing stand in relation
C to the nature of their rights over the disputed land. The admissions, at least,
indicate that the respondents were, at the material time, not sure about the
exact nature of their right over the said land. Hence they have at one stage
described the nature of their rights as lease hold, at another stage as old
grant and at a third stage they have retracted from their admission that the
land was 'old grant'. The last deed merely states that they have the same
D rights as their Vendees had in the said land. Looking to the nature of evidence,
therefore, which was led in the present case, the High Court was not justified •
T
in coming to the conclusion that the land was not held on old grant basis by I
r
Mukherjee.

Therefore, since the land is held on old grant basis in the present case,
E the appellants are entitled to resume the land in accordance with law. In the
premises the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court is set aside and the suit of the respondents is dismissed with
costs.

A.K.T. Appeal allowed.
F