MD. HANIF versus THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 197 · Decided: 03-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MD. HANIF 
v. 
THE STATE OF ASSAM 
September 3, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAM1 AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, Art. 226-lwisdiction of High Court. 
197 
The British Crown had leased a land for 99 years and the lease pro-
vided for resumption by the Government for public purpose. The appel-
lant had purchased the leasehold rights. When the Deputy Commissioner 
on behalf of the respondent-State served a notice of resumption on tho 
appellant, he filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenghg 
t)le validity of the order of resumption on the grounds that the land did 
not vest in the State, the Deputy Commissioner had no right to issue the 
notice under the lease, and that the public purpose had not been men-
tioned in the notice, and so the notice was invalid. The High Court dis-
missed the petition holding that the case involved disputed questions of 
title, that the remedy of the appellant was to file a suit and a petition 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable. In appeal to this 
Court, the appellant contended that no disputed questions of title were 
inYolved as the title of the appellant as a grantee was not questioned by the 
State and the question at issue was whether the State was entitled to re-
sume the land by virtue of the lease granted by the British Crown. 
HELD : The judgment of the High Court bad to be set aside. 
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 is an extraordinary 
jurisdiction vested not for the purpo;e of declaring private rights of the 
parties but for the purpose of ensuring that the law of the land is implicitly 
obeyed and that the various tribunals and pujlic authorities are kept within 
the limits of their jurisdiction. The remedy provided under Art. 226 is a 
remedy againsf the violation of the rights of a citizen by the State or 
statutory authority. 
In other words, it is a remedy in public law. [202 
C-E] 
In the present case, the appellant was not merely attempting to enforce 
his contractual right but important constitutional issues were raised on 
his behalf. [203 Bl 
State of OrL<~a v. Ramchandra, A.1.R. 1964 S.C. 865, distinguished. 
Basappa v. Nagappa, [1955] 2 S.C.R. 250, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1378 of 
1966. 
. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 22, 1966 of 
the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 35 of 1963. 
B. Sen and P. K. Ghosh, for the appellant. 
Niren De, Attorney-General, Naunit Lal and S. N. Chaudhury, 
for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court wa> delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. 
This appeal is brought by certificate from 
the judgment of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, dated 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[l 970] 2 S.C.R. 
April 22, 1966 in Civil Rule No. 35 of 1963 whereby the High 
Court by a majority judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by 
the appellant. 
The land in dispute was originally located in the State of 
Mylliem in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. This land was leased out 
in perpetuity to the British Government by Khasi Land-owners 
Thholyomawrie and U. Mongormawrie by a deed of lease exe-
cuted on November 4, 1874. 
On April 1, 1907 the Secretary 
of State for India on behalf of the British Crown made a settle-
ment of the land with Capt. E. M. Manley for 99 years on a 
premium of Rs. 716-8-9 and annual rev.enue of Rs. 
35-13-3. 
The document of lease was executed by the Deputy Commissioner, 
Khasi and Jaintia Hills. 
On March 18, 1909 Capt. Manley 
sold his right and title in the land to Messrs Jamatu!Jah & Sons. 
Subsequent to the sale Messrs Jamatullah & Sons constructed 
three houses on the land, known as 'Cedar Lodge', 'Cryptomaria' 
and 'Eldorado'. The appellant is the successor of Messrs Jamat-
ullah & Sons. Out of the three buildings, the appellant has been 
living in 'Eldorado' and the other two buildings have been given 
on rent to the Government of Assam. 'Cryptomaria' is occupied 
by on.e of the Ministers of the Government of Assam and 'Cedar 
Lodge' has been occupied by the offices of the Electricity Board. 
Clause V of the lease in favour of Capt. Manley reads 
as 
follows : 
"If the site, or any part of it, is required for public 
purposes (including the maintenance or alteration of 
public aqueducts), it may be resumed by Government. 
In this case the lessee will be entitled to receive such 
compensation, calculated according to the spirit of the 
Land Acquisition Act, as fairly 

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