NEW DELHI: A 30 acre land in Haldwani, taken on lease in June 1924 by one John Vaughan, has changed many hands but the original ownership transfer from the Englishman to an Indian in 1947 continues to be mired in litigation for the last more than 75 years, during which two generations of claimants have perished.
After India got independence, Vaughan sold the land, which was registered for a 30-year-lease period extendable by another 30 years, to one Manohar Lal on November 17, 1947. The lease deed mentioned that the land could not be sold without prior permission of the deputy commissioner of Nainital, which apparently was not obtained by Vaughan before selling it.
The land also was subjected to Land Ceiling Act and the state had initiated eviction proceedings of the tenants. But a parallel proceeding for mutation of the land in the name of legal heirs of Manohar Lal, who died issueless and intestate, was initiated and the authorities without adverting to other proceedings had registered the legal heirs as owners. All these came to be decided by the Allahabad HC and later the Uttarakhand HC. The HC order granting ownership to feuding kin of Manohar lal in 2007 was challenged in SC by the state government.
Referring to the complex web of litigation involving the land and after examining each offshoot of the main litigation over ownership of the land that was first taken up in lease by the Englishman in 1924, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari asked the HC to undertake fresh conjoint evaluation of documents, which have been created over a century.
Writing the judgment, Justice Kant said, “We are conscious of the fact that these appeals have been pending before the SC for over 15 years. In normal circumstances, we would have ventured to decide the issues ourselves but in light of…. dearth of appropriate records, we are constrained to hold that ownership rights in respect of an immovable property cannot be decided casually. We are left with no other option but to remand these appeals back to the HC for effective adjudication on merits.
“Our hands are further tied because …the ownership of certain portions of the land has apparently changed hands on account of subsequent sale by the respondents. We must also note that the value of the land has increased exponentially during the entire period of litigation. Any decision now cannot be based on conjectures and surmises or on the basis of mere guesswork. Hence, we are reluctant to give a final opinion on the matter until the court is satisfied on the basis of the entirety of documents,” the SC said.
“There are indeed compelling circumstances which have been left unanswered by the courts below. Therefore, we find it expedient to remand the present appeals back to the HC for fresh adjudication,” it said.
The SC asked the state government to produce all relevant records from 1924 before the HC. It clarified that “casual findings/observations made by revenue authorities or the civil court shall not be accepted at their face value unless the HC is satisfied on a thorough inspection of the original or certified copies of the relevant record. The parties are directed to keep the status quo until the matters are decided afresh by the HC”.
After India got independence, Vaughan sold the land, which was registered for a 30-year-lease period extendable by another 30 years, to one Manohar Lal on November 17, 1947. The lease deed mentioned that the land could not be sold without prior permission of the deputy commissioner of Nainital, which apparently was not obtained by Vaughan before selling it.
The land also was subjected to Land Ceiling Act and the state had initiated eviction proceedings of the tenants. But a parallel proceeding for mutation of the land in the name of legal heirs of Manohar Lal, who died issueless and intestate, was initiated and the authorities without adverting to other proceedings had registered the legal heirs as owners. All these came to be decided by the Allahabad HC and later the Uttarakhand HC. The HC order granting ownership to feuding kin of Manohar lal in 2007 was challenged in SC by the state government.
Referring to the complex web of litigation involving the land and after examining each offshoot of the main litigation over ownership of the land that was first taken up in lease by the Englishman in 1924, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari asked the HC to undertake fresh conjoint evaluation of documents, which have been created over a century.
Writing the judgment, Justice Kant said, “We are conscious of the fact that these appeals have been pending before the SC for over 15 years. In normal circumstances, we would have ventured to decide the issues ourselves but in light of…. dearth of appropriate records, we are constrained to hold that ownership rights in respect of an immovable property cannot be decided casually. We are left with no other option but to remand these appeals back to the HC for effective adjudication on merits.
“Our hands are further tied because …the ownership of certain portions of the land has apparently changed hands on account of subsequent sale by the respondents. We must also note that the value of the land has increased exponentially during the entire period of litigation. Any decision now cannot be based on conjectures and surmises or on the basis of mere guesswork. Hence, we are reluctant to give a final opinion on the matter until the court is satisfied on the basis of the entirety of documents,” the SC said.
“There are indeed compelling circumstances which have been left unanswered by the courts below. Therefore, we find it expedient to remand the present appeals back to the HC for fresh adjudication,” it said.
The SC asked the state government to produce all relevant records from 1924 before the HC. It clarified that “casual findings/observations made by revenue authorities or the civil court shall not be accepted at their face value unless the HC is satisfied on a thorough inspection of the original or certified copies of the relevant record. The parties are directed to keep the status quo until the matters are decided afresh by the HC”.