Supreme Court Upholds Government’s Right to Resume Land Under Old Grant: Union of India vs. Vijay Krishna Uniyal (23 October 2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court, after upholding a lower court’s finding on land ownership, can make observations that could potentially reopen the settled issue of title.

CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Land Resumption

Case Name: Union of India vs. Vijay Krishna Uniyal (D) through L.Rs.

Judgment Date: 23 October 2017

Date of the Judgment: 23 October 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 913

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a court, after confirming a lower court’s decision on who owns a piece of land, make comments that could lead to the same issue being argued again? This is the core question the Supreme Court addressed in this case. The dispute arose when the Union of India sought to reclaim land it claimed was held under an old grant, a type of land agreement from the British colonial era. The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if the High Court was correct in making certain observations that could potentially undermine the lower courts’ findings.

Case Background

Vijay Krishna Uniyal claimed ownership of 3.398 acres of land known as Wolfsburn Estate in Landour Cantonment, Mussoorie. He asserted his ownership based on a registered sale deed dated 14th August, 1980. The Union of India, however, issued a notice on 19th August, 1985, to Uniyal to vacate the land, stating that the land belonged to the President of India and was held under an “Old Grant” which allowed the government to resume the land. The notice also offered Rs. 17,275 as compensation for the structures on the land.

Uniyal filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent his dispossession. He also sought compensation if the court allowed the government to take possession. Uniyal claimed that he had ownership rights, or at least occupancy rights analogous to ownership, and that the government could only take the land through acquisition with proper compensation. He also argued that he had gained ownership through long and undisturbed possession for over 60 years without paying rent.

The Union of India contested Uniyal’s claims, stating that he had only purchased occupancy rights, not absolute ownership. They asserted their right to resume the land under the Old Grant terms for national defense purposes. They denied that occupancy rights were equivalent to ownership and rejected Uniyal’s claim of adverse possession. The government stated that it was a case of resumption, not acquisition, and that compensation was only applicable to the structures, not the land itself.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court ruled against Uniyal, stating that the land belonged to the Government of India and that Uniyal only had occupancy rights derived from the Old Grant. The court held that the government had the right to resume the property and that Uniyal was only entitled to compensation for the structures on the land.

Uniyal appealed to the Additional District Judge-II, Dehradun. The Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding that the land belonged to the Government of India and that Uniyal was not the owner. However, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the Trial Court’s judgment on the issue of compensation, stating that Uniyal was entitled to compensation and should approach the government for the appointment of an arbitrator.

Uniyal then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court admitted the appeal, framing two substantial questions of law: whether the notice to resume the land was valid without an opportunity for Uniyal to determine the compensation, and whether the property could be held to belong to the government based solely on Uniyal’s alleged admission. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, agreeing with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the government’s ownership. However, the High Court also made observations that Uniyal had a prima facie case of ownership based on his registered sale deed. The High Court added that Uniyal should not be evicted from the property except in accordance with the law and that he should have a full opportunity to defend himself in any eviction proceedings.

The Union of India filed a review application against the High Court’s observations, which was also dismissed. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s observations that could potentially reopen the issue of ownership.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of “Old Grants,” specifically those issued under Governor General Order No. 179 of 12th September, 1836. These grants were a system established during British colonial rule, allowing individuals to occupy land while the ownership remained with the government. The notice issued to Vijay Krishna Uniyal referred to this order.

The Supreme Court also considered the following provisions:

• Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which deals with second appeals to the High Court.
• Section 110 of the Evidence Act which deals with burden of proof as to ownership.
• Section 97 of the Evidence Act which deals with evidence as to terms of grant.
• Section 114 of the Evidence Act which deals with presumption as to existence of certain facts.

Arguments

Appellant (Union of India) Arguments:

• The High Court’s observations in paragraphs 17 and 18 of its judgment, stating that the registered sale deed showed a prima facie case of ownership for the plaintiff, were unwarranted and contradicted the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
• The plaintiff was not the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff had only purchased occupancy rights and not the land itself.
• The suit property was held by the plaintiff under Old Grant terms, which allowed the government to resume the land after giving one month’s notice.
• The plaintiff’s admission deed and declaration deed, executed at the time of the sale deed, clearly stated that the ownership of the suit property was with the Union of India, and the Union had the right to resume the property.
• The High Court’s observation that the plaintiff could raise the issue of ownership in future eviction proceedings was contrary to the principle of res judicata, as the issue of ownership had been directly and substantially decided by the lower courts.
• The plaintiff was only entitled to compensation for the structures on the land, not for the land itself.
• The High Court should not have made observations that could lead to reopening the settled issue of title.

Respondent (Vijay Krishna Uniyal’s Legal Representatives) Arguments:

• The High Court was correct in leaving the question of ownership open, as the issue of title was not directly and substantially involved in a suit for permanent injunction.
• The appellant failed to produce the original Old Grant document, which was essential to substantiate the government’s claim of ownership.
• The Grant Register of Landour Cantonment indicated that the grant was “Fee Simple” under the Walsh Settlement of 1842, implying absolute ownership by the landholder.
• The courts below should not have decided the question of title in an injunction suit.
• The burden of proof to establish ownership was on the defendant, not the plaintiff, under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.
• The findings of the lower courts were contrary to the record and untenable in law, as they accepted the unsubstantiated defense of the appellant without producing the Old Grant document.
• The admission and declaration deeds executed by the plaintiff were obtained under a mistaken impression of facts and law and were not conclusive.
• The plaintiff had possessory rights and ownership by adverse possession.
• The High Court did not answer the substantial questions of law framed in the case.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The central issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court, while dismissing the second appeal and upholding the concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below on the factum of ownership of the land, was justified in making an observation which has the potential of reopening the already settled issue of title in respect of the suit property?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court

• Union of India and Ors. Vs. Harish Chand Anand, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 113 – The Court cited this case to support the argument that compensation could be determined even after resumption of the property.
• State of U.P. Vs. Zahoor Ahmeda and Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 547 – Cited to support the government’s right to resume land under Old Grants.
• Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 555 – Cited to support the government’s right to resume land under Old Grants.
• Union of India and Ors. Vs. Kamla Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 511 – Cited to support the government’s right to resume land under Old Grants.
• Azim Ahmad Kazmi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2012) 7 SCC 278 – Cited to support the government’s right to resume land under Old Grants.
• Union of India and Ors. Vs. Robert Zomawia Street, (2014) 6 SCC 707 – Cited to support the government’s right to resume land under Old Grants.
• Purshottam Das Tandon (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Military Estate Officer and Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 344 – Cited to support the government’s right to resume land under Old Grants.
• Usha Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Government of India and Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 481 – Cited to support the government’s right to resume land under Old Grants.
• Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594 – Discussed regarding the scope of title in injunction suits.
• Sajjadanashin Sayed MD. B.E. EDR (D) by LRs. Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 350 – Discussed regarding the scope of title in injunction suits.
• Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha Vs. Ujagar Singh and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 543 – Discussed regarding the scope of title in injunction suits.
• Union of India Vs. Purushotam Dass Tandon and Anr., 1986 (Supp.) SCC 720 – Cited by the respondents, but distinguished by the Court.
• Satyendra Kumar (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Mast Ram Uniyal (Dead) though LRs, (2013) 14 SCC 367 – Cited by the respondents, but distinguished by the Court.
• Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Assam and Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 435 – Cited by the respondents, but distinguished by the Court.
• S. Nazeer Ahmed Vs. State Bank of Mysore and Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 75 – Cited by the respondents, but distinguished by the Court.
• Balbir Kaur and Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 1 – Cited by the respondents, but distinguished by the Court.
• Management of Sundaram Industries Limited Vs. Sundaram Industries Employees Union, (2014) 2 SCC 600 – Cited by the respondents, but distinguished by the Court.
• Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Haji Latif and Ors., (1968) 3 SCR 862 – Cited by the respondents regarding the obligation to produce documents.
• National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. Jugal Kishore and Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 626 – Cited by the respondents regarding the obligation to produce documents.
• Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1986) 1 SCC 133 – Cited by the respondents regarding the interpretation of terms of grants.
• Muhammad Imam Ali Khan Vs. Sardar Husain Khan, (1897-98) 25 IA 161 – Cited by the respondents regarding the binding nature of admissions.
• Nagubai Ammal and Ors. Vs. B. Shama Rao and Ors., (1956) 1 SCR 451 – Cited by the respondents regarding the binding nature of admissions.
• Kishori Lal Vs. Chaltibai, (1959) SCR Suppl.(1) 698 = AIR 1959 SC 504 – Cited by the respondents regarding the binding nature of admissions.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court

• Governor General Order No. 179 of 12th September, 1836 – The basis of the Old Grant system.
• Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Regarding second appeals to the High Court.
• Section 110 of the Evidence Act – Regarding the burden of proof of ownership.
• Section 97 of the Evidence Act – Regarding evidence as to terms of grant.
• Section 114 of the Evidence Act – Regarding presumption as to existence of certain facts.

Authorities: How They Were Considered

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on several authorities to support its view that the land was held under Old Grant terms and that the government had the right to resume the land. The Court distinguished those authorities relied upon by the respondents, stating that they did not apply to the facts of this case.

The Court specifically cited Union of India and Ors. Vs. Harish Chand Anand, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 113* to support the fact that compensation can be determined even after the resumption of land. The Court also relied on State of U.P. Vs. Zahoor Ahmeda and Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 547*, Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 555*, Union of India and Ors. Vs. Kamla Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 511*, Azim Ahmad Kazmi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2012) 7 SCC 278*, Union of India and Ors. Vs. Robert Zomawia Street, (2014) 6 SCC 707*, Purshottam Das Tandon (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Military Estate Officer and Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 344*, and Usha Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Government of India and Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 481* to support the government’s right to resume land under Old Grants.

The Court distinguished the authorities cited by the respondents, including Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594*, Sajjadanashin Sayed MD. B.E. EDR (D) by LRs. Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 350*, and Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha Vs. Ujagar Singh and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 543*, stating that these cases did not apply to the specific facts of this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the land belonged to the Government of India and that the plaintiff only had occupancy rights.
• The fact that the plaintiff had executed admission and declaration deeds acknowledging the government’s ownership and right to resume the land.
• The fact that the registered agreement to sell, which preceded the sale deed, clearly stated that the land belonged to the government.
• The fact that the issue of ownership was directly and substantially involved in the suit for permanent injunction.
• The established legal position regarding Old Grants and the government’s right to resume land under such grants.
• The principle of res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided.

Ratio of the Case

The Supreme Court held that when a High Court upholds the concurrent findings of the lower courts on a specific issue (in this case, land ownership), it should not make observations that could potentially lead to the issue being re-litigated. The Court emphasized that the issue of ownership was directly and substantially involved in the suit for permanent injunction and that the High Court’s observations were contradictory to the findings of the lower courts.

The Court reiterated the government’s right to resume land held under Old Grants, especially for national defense purposes, and that compensation was only applicable to structures on the land, not the land itself.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the Union of India, set aside the observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 17 and 18 of its judgment, and upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Court clarified that the issue of ownership was settled and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any further claims on the land, except for compensation for the structures on the land.

Flowchart of the Case