LexSAHODARA DEVI & ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G H SAHODARA DEVI & ORS. v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. March 26, 1971. (J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, r. 21-Power under rule to grant lease whether discretionary-Use of word 'May', effect of. The appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution agaJns! the refusal of the Defence Ministry to execute a lease under r. 27 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 in respect of a bungalow situated in a cantonment area, on o.ccupancy land held on 'old grants lease'. The single Judge directed the respondents to execute the lease but the Division Bench held that the power to grant a lease under r. 27 was dis- cretionary. The Division Bench therefore set aside the o.rders of the single Judge and issued orders to the respondents to reconsider the request of the appellants for grant of lease under r. · 27 and Sch. VII of the Rules in ac- cordance with law. With certificate the present appeal was filed in this Court. The only question for consideration was ~-hether the appellants were entitled to a direction against the respondents to issue a lease tu thenl under r. 27 and Sch. VII of the 1937 Rules. HELD: Rule 27 only confers a power in general on the Military Estates Officer to grant leases and, by using the word 'may•, it clearly givrs: him discretion to grant leases in suitable cases. There is the further cir- cumstance that the exercise of the power by the Military Estate Officer haso been made subject to the approval of the Central Government or such other authority as the Central Government may appoint for that purpose. The power of the Military Estates Officer being subject to such discretion- ary approval or disapproval of another authority cannot possibly be held to be required to be exercised in all cases without any discretion. [234G- 235A] In the present case therefor~ the High Court in directing a reconsidera- tion of the case in accordance with law was quite correct. so that the ap- plication of the appellants must be decided afresh after keeping in view the principle that the power to grant a lease under r. 27 is discretionary, but the r.efusal should only be in suitable cases where sufficient reasons exist for the purpose. [235C] Sardar Govindrao & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1965) I S.C.~. 678, distinguished. OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2246 of 1969. . Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 11, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 469 of 1968. Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga, for the appellants. V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. SAHODARA DEVI .. GOVT. OF INDIA (Bhargava,J.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bbargava, J.-The appellants are admittedly the joint owners of Bungalow No. 45, situated along Tagore Road, In the Canton- ment of Kanpur. These premises are recorded in the General Land Re~ter of the .Cantonment as occupancy land on old grant terms. It appears that the words "old grant terms" referred to grants made by the Government under .the General Order of the Governor-General in Council dated 12th September, 1836. Sub- sequently, the first Act to be passed in· respect of these lands was the Cantonments Act No. 13 of 1889. This was followed by Cantonments Act No. 15 of 1910 and Cantonments Code, 1912. These were a111ended by Cantonments Act No. 2 of 1924 which still continues to be in force. On the 26th June, 1925, Rules were framed· for the first time under section 280 of the Cant0nme11ts Act of 1924, regulating administration of Cantonment lands. These Rules were, however, superseded by fresh Rules by Gov- ernment nOtification dated 23rd November, 1937. The new Rules are described as "Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937". Under these Rules, a provision was made in rule· 27 for regula- risation of old gr11nts by issue of fresh leases. The appellants did not have any documents to show how the original title of their predecessors was acquired in respect of these lands. Tl!e earliest d\)Cument, which the appellants could produce, was a sale-deed executed by Ram Nath and others, sons of Roop Kishore, in favour of Dost Moha.mmad Estate, on the 8th September, 1943. This document recited that Roop Kishore, the father of vendors Ram Nath and others, purchased the property in various instal- ments by documents executed between the years 1901 and 1908.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.