AZIM AHMAD KAZMI AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 16-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 960 
AZIM AHMAD KAZMI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 2003 etc.) 
JULY 16, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Government Grants Act, 1895 - ss. 2 and 3 - Grant of 
C lease by Government , Cancellation of before expiry of the 
lease period - Dispossession of lessee - Writ petition 
challenging cancellation and dispossession - Dismissed by 
High Court but observing that State shall not dispossess 
except in accordance with the procedure established by Jaw -
o On appeal, held: Since the State has absolute power under 
the terms of the grant of lease to resume the leased property 
for itself or for any public purpose, the order canceling the 
lease is valid and legal - The State followed the special 
procedure as laid down under Clause 3(c) of the lease deed 
E to dispossess the lessee, it was not required to follow any other 
procedure or law - Lease. 
A lease-deed of the premises in question was 
executed by the State in favour of the appellants (in Civil 
Appeal No. 2006 of 2003) on 19.3.1996. The State 
F cancelled the deed before expiry of the lease period and 
proceeded to resume the premises by order dated 
15.12.2000. District Magistrate sent a notice dated 
11.1.2001 to the lessees informing about the same. The 
objection raised by the lessees was rejected by order 
G dated 24.8.2001 but with the observation that the lessor-
State was not entitled to take forcible possession, and 
could take possession only in accordance with the 
procedure established by law. The lessees challenged 
H 
960 
AZIM AHMAD KAZMI AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & 961 
ANR. 
the orders dated 15.12.2000 and 24.8.2001 and the notice 
A 
dated 11.1.2001 by filing a writ petition. The writ petition 
was dismissed by High Court affirming the cancellation 
of the lease deed. Lessees filed appeal to this court 
aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition. Lessor-State 
also filed appeal to this court aggrieved against the part 
B 
of the order whereby it was held that the State was not 
entitled to take forcible possession but for in accordance 
with the procedure established by law. 
The questions for consideration before this Court 
were (i) whether the order of the State for cancellation of C 
the lease and resumption of possession was legally valid; 
and (ii) whether the State could dispossess the lessee in 
accordance with the Government Grants Act, 1895, 
without resorting to other procedure established by any 
other law. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal of the lessee and disposing 
of the appeal of the lessor-State, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 As the State Government is resuming the 
leased property for itself or for any public purpose, which 
under the terms of the grant it has absolute power to do, 
the order passed by it on 15th December, 2000 is perfectly 
valid and does not suffer from any illegality. Clause 3(C) 
of the lease deed clearly confers power upon the lessor 
State that if the plot in question is required by the State 
Government for its own purpose or for any public 
purpose, it shall have the right to give one month's notice 
in writing to the lessees to remove any building standing 
E 
F 
on the plot and to take possession thereof on the expiry 
of the two months' from the date of service of notice. 
G 
There is a further condition in the clause that if the lessor 
is willing to purchase the building standing on the plot, 
the lessee shall be paid such amount as may be 
determined by the Secretary to the State Government in 
the Nagar Awas Department. The clause of re-entry was 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A not introduced for the first time in the deed executed in 
1996. [Paras 13 and 14] [970-B-D, E, G-H] 
1.2. The plea of the lessee that it was for the first time 
in their case that a lease had been cancelled and the plot 
8 has been resumed by the State Government under the 
terms of the deed, is not correct as a similar course of 
action has been taken in the past also. Therefore, the 
violation of Article 14 cannot be alleged in the present 
case. [Para 15] [971-E-F] 
C 
2. For taking possession, the State Government is 
required to follow the law, if any, prescribed. In the 
absence of any specific law, the State Government may 
take possession by filing a suit. In the case in hand the 
procedure as laid down under clause 3 (c) of the lease 
D deed procedure was followed. Therefore, there is no other 
procedure or law required to be f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.