UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus HARISH CHAND ANAND

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 26-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
HARISH CHAND ANAND 
JULY 26, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
B 
Government Grant Act, 1895: Section 3. 
Govemment Land-Grant of-Convenant-Resumption of Land- · 
Conditions Precedent for-Held issue of one month's notice as provided in 
C 
convenant is a condition precedent-Determination of compensation and 
payment thereof held not a condition precedent for resumption of land. 
The respondent was granted a licence under Section 3 of the Govern-
ment Grant Act, 1895 to erect structure on the Government land. Clause 
I of the Grant empowered the Government to resume the land at any time D 
on giving one month's notice and payment of value of such building as may 
have been authorised. On the question of power of the Government to 
resume the land a Division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that 
it was a condition precedent that the Government should give notice to the 
respondent, determine the compensation and then resume the property E 
granted. State preferred on appeal to this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : 1. The High Court was not right in its conclusion that it is 
a condition precedent to determine the amount of the value of the building F 
in the first instance and payment thereof before resumption of the proper-
ty. [350-F] 
2. The Standing Order No. 241 though does not contemplate of 
issuing prior notice to erstwhile licencee whose licence has been deter· G 
mined under Clause I of the Grant, before determination of the actual 
amount, the erstwhile grantee is entitled to a notice, so that the grantee 
would be at liberty to place before the competent authority all relevant 
material for determining the value of the building and for payment of the 
amount thereof. Thus it is not a condition precedent to determine, at the 
first instance, the compensation after giving an opportunity make payment H 
347 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A thereof and then to resume the property. What is a con.dition precedent is 
issuance of one month's notice and on expiry thereof the Government is 
entitled to resume the land. The amount is to be determined as required 
under the relevant provisions after giving opportunity and which could be 
done thereafter. (350-B-D] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Sh. Raj Singh v. Union of India, AIR (1973) Delhi 169, approved. 
Bhagwati Devi v. President of India, (1974) 72 Allahabad Law Journal 
43, disapproved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1868 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3.76 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 36 of 1976. 
P.P. Malhotra, Y.P. Mahajan, and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is an appeal by Certificate granted by the High Court by order 
dated December 14, 1978 with a question as under: 
"Whether the only right of the grantee is to claim compensation 
and whether the Government can take possession at any time after 
expiry of one month in view of Governor General's Order No. 179 
dated 12th September, 1836?" 
F 
In view of the Certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 
133(1) of the Constitution, the question arises whether the State is entitled 
to resume land granted under s.3 of Government Grant Act, 1895 without 
prior. determination of the amount for the structure. Though the respon-
dent has been served, he has not appeared, either in person or through 
counsel. We have taken the assistance of counsel for the appellant and we 
G have perused the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in Sh. Raj 
Singh v. Union of India, AIR (1973) Delhi 169, and the Division Bench 
judgment of the High Court of Allahabad reported in Bhagwati Devi v. 
President of India, (1974) 72 Allahabad Law Journal 43, which was relied 
on and followed by the Division Bench in this case to hold that it is a 
H condition precedent that the State should give notice to the respondent, 
U.0.1. v. H.C.ANAND 
349 
determine the compensation and then resume the property granted to the A 
respondent. The question, therefore, is whether it is a condition precedent 
for the Government to resume the land only after determination of the 
compensation and payment thereof or on the issuance of the notice as 
required under the Grant and on expiry thereof. To appreciate the con-
tention, it is necessary to look to the provisions of the Grant itself. Under B 
s.3 of the Act the Governor General in Council exercised the power and 
gran

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