R. C. Lahoti,j. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an order dated 25th January, 1971 issued by the Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts are that within the cantonment area of Jhansi, U. P. , the petitioners own and possess jointly a Bungalow No. 17, S. R. Road i. e. Survey No. 236. The Bungalow is said to be held under an "old Grant" - a term peculiar to the cantonments in India. It means a tenure governed by order No. 179 of 1836 of the Governor General. The petitioners have purchased the Bungalow fora consideration of Rs. 22,000. 00 from their predecessor, one Rajender Pal Talwar, on 6. 4. 1976. Rajender Pal Talwar had in his turn acquired the Bungalow from Lala Manoo Lal Seth. Since the year 1971 the Bungalow has continued in the ownership and possession of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest. ( 3 ) IN Jaunary, 1971, the petitioners were served with the impugned notice bearing No. 46/10/l/landg/68/264/d (lands), Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi dated 25th January, 1971. It will be useful to reproduce the contents of the notice which reads as under :- Notice Whereas the land comprising Survey No. 236 (Bungalow No. l7) Jhansi Cantonment measuring 5. 04 acres or thereabout and bounded as follows :- North by - Survey No. 233 and 235 South by - Survey No. 15 East by - Survey No. 237 and 239 West by - Survey No. l5 Belongs to the President of India, hereinafter called the Government, and is held by you on old grant terms as contained in Governor General s Order No. l79 dated the 12th September 1836 under which Government are entitled to resume the said land. And whereas the said property stands hired by the Government and is in the occupation of the Government. And whereas the Government have decided to resume the said property under the terms of aforemendoned Governor General s order. Now therefore in exercise of the power hereinbefore mentioned, the Governerntn hereby inform that -all private rights easements and interests you may have in the said land as also in the buildings standing thereon shall cease on the expiry of 30 days of this notice. Now therefore in exercise of the power hereinbefore mentioned, the Governerntn hereby inform that -all private rights easements and interests you may have in the said land as also in the buildings standing thereon shall cease on the expiry of 30 days of this notice. Take notice further that the Government are prepared to pay and so offer you the sum of Rs. l5,123. 00 (Rupees fifteen thousand one hundred and twenty three) as the value of the authorised erections standing on the land. In case the amount of compensation offered is not acceptable to you, you are at liberty if you so desire, to remove the structures so as to leave the land in the same condition in which it was before the erections. sd/- D. Krishnamurti. Under Secretary. Enclosed : Cheque No. A 732302 dated 25/1/71 Rs. l5123. 00 only. 2 ( 4 ) SOON on the receipt of the notice the petitioners lodged a protest challenging the validity of the action taken or proposed to be taken. The cheque accompanying the impunged notice was refused to be accepted and sent back alongwith the reply. ( 5 ) IT is not necessary to state the pleadings of the case in details and to enter into a detailed discussion of the relevant law governing the disposal of the petition inasmuch as the facts of the case bear a striking similarly with the facts of the case as they were in Durga Dass Sud and Anrs. VS. UOI and Ors. , AIR 1972 HP 26 , a decision by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh Relied on on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There too the petitioners were holding property in a cantonment area. The property was a house property brought up on a land held under a grant governed by the Governor General s Order No. l79 of 1836. Action was initiated to resume the grant offering compensation for the house structure standing on the land. The action of the Union of India was challenged on the grounds identical with those on which the present petition is founded. ( 6 ) THE High Court of Himachal Pradesh has traced the history of several laws governing the cantonment areas leading upto enactment of the Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act 1902 which was also repealed by the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. ( 6 ) THE High Court of Himachal Pradesh has traced the history of several laws governing the cantonment areas leading upto enactment of the Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act 1902 which was also repealed by the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. The question posed for decision before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was whether the action of the respondent in exercise of the powers under the Governor General s order No. l73 of 1836 wherein it was mentioned that the Government had decided to resume possession of the said land and of the building now standing thereon is valid? Having traced the legislative history the laws governing the land and the property in cantonment areas from time to time, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh analysed all the relevant provisions of the Constitution to find out if the Governor General s order No-179 of 1836 could be said to be an existing law saved by the Constitution, so as to sustain the validity of the power exercised by the Union of India. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has concluded by holding in the following words :- "hence this regulation under which power is sought to be exercised in resuming the grant and taking possession of the house is not an existing law or law which has the statutory force as it had quite a long time back been superseded and repealed and enacted by the Legislature and thereafter the Canontmnet Act, 1924 also has come into existence and there is also a priovision for the acquisition of the immovable property in that Act and, therefore, in the face of these enactments, this regulation which was however, enacted by the competent authority cannot now be said to have the force of law and it ceased to be law as long back as 1902 and provision now exists in the Cantonment Act, 1924 for acquisition of the property. Besides them there are Cantonment property Rules, 1925 as also Cantonment Administration Rules, 1927 which also deal with the acquisition etc. of the property within the Cantonment area. Therefore, this law is not an existing law. ( 7 ) THIS was the only decision cited at the bar. No other decision, much less a decision taking a view to the contrary has been brought to my notice. of the property within the Cantonment area. Therefore, this law is not an existing law. ( 7 ) THIS was the only decision cited at the bar. No other decision, much less a decision taking a view to the contrary has been brought to my notice. Having carefully gone through the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, I find myself in full agreement with the exposition of law made by that High Court. It is, therefore, not considered necessary to restate all those reasonings of law. ( 8 ) HIGH Court of Himachal Pradesh has ultimately quashed the resumption of grant by the UOI by holding :- "from this the learned counsel wants that this Regulation No-179 of 1836 no longer holds good and it has ceased to be an existing law subsequent to the passing of the several enactments one after the other by the Legislature and, therefore, no powers could be exercised under this order which is now a dead letter. In my opinoon the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be quite correct. The order was purely an executive order without any Statutory Sanction behind it and it was not an existing law and no such power for depriving person his property could be exercise and orderof a regulation. Which is not existing law. There for the action of respondents is wholly illegal as it has got no sanction of any statutory laws. ( 10 ) THE petitioner herein also deserve to be allowed the reliet. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY the petitiotn is allowed. The impugned notiece dated 25th January 1971, Annexure K, is quashed. The respondents are restrained from taking any action thereunder. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.