UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KAMLA VERMA

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1157 · Decided: 13-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 1157 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
KAMLA VERMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 6563 of 2010) 
AUGUST 13, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Cantonments: Grant of land in cantonment area on "old 
grant" terms -
Resumption of land by Government -
· 
Permissibility - Held: It is open to the Government to resume 
C 
the land granted on "old grant" terms since the grantee never 
becomes a full fledged owner of such land - Subsequent 
purchaser of such land cannot claim better title than the 
original grantee. 
D 
The land situated in Lucknow Cantt. was taken on 
lease under an agreement di,ited 26th July, 1948 by the 
appellant-government authorities. On 23rd December, 
1996, the said land was purchased by the respondent. 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court 
E 
praying that the land in question be de-hire~ under the 
policy of Central Government as reflected in Para 19 
Clause (C) of the Policy and Procedure for dehiring of 
houses dated 19.11.1979 (as amended on 19.3.1985) as 
the premises was not in use by the authorities due to its 
dilapidated condition. By the impugned order, the High 
Court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to 
allow the repair work of the premises and to de-hire the 
same with immediate effect. 
F 
The appellants-government authorities filed the G 
instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment on the 
ground that certain factual aspects placed before the 
High Court were not considered; and that the land in 
1157 
H 
1158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A question was granted on "old grant" terms and, therefore, 
the original grantee was never a full fledged owner and 
since the respondent purchased the land from the heir 
of the original grantee who himself did not have full 
fledged right, the respondent did not have any right 
B · better than what the original grantee had in respect of the 
said land. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In *Chief Executive Officer case, it was held that 
C the allottee of the land in cantonment area is never a full-
fledged owner of the said land but he is given the said 
land only on "old grant" terms. The lease agreement 
dated 26.7.1948 showed that the suit land was held by the 
allottee on "old grant" terms under G.G.C. No. 179 dated 
D 12.9.1836. Being allotted the land on "old grant" terms, 
the said allottee never became a full-fledged owner and, 
therefore, he could not have transferred any right better 
than what he had in respect of the land in question to the 
respondent. The High Court did not consider the fact that 
E the respondent was holding the land in question only on 
"old grant" terms and, therefore, she was not a full-
fledged owner of the land but she had the right only in 
respect of the super-structure put up on the land in 
question, which was given on lease to the appellants. 
F Even in the sale deed dated 23rd December, 1996 
executed in favour of the respondent, it was stated that 
the vendor was an occupancy holder of the land and 
trees of the said premises and owner of super structure 
of the bungalow. In the land register also, the Government 
G of India was shown as a "landlord" and the son of the 
original grantee was shown to be having occupancy right 
and the nature of his right was shown to be of "old 
grant". Even in an eviction suit earlier filed by the 
respondent, the trial court, while dismissing the suit, 
H clearly came to the conclusion that as per the general 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KAMLA VERMA 
1159 
order of the GGC No. 179, the land and the trees standing 
A 
on the land etc. were the property of the Government of 
India and that the land in question was not owned by the 
respondent. The said findings were not challenged by the 
respondent. All these facts were incorporated in the 
counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the High 
B 
Court. Unfortunately, they were not considered by the 
High Court while allowing the writ petition. In view of the 
legal position, it was always open to the appellants to 
resume the land in question. The· High Court was in error 
in considering the respondent as an owner of the land c 
in question. [Paras 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18] [1163-F-H; 1164-
A-C-D; 1166-G-H; 1167 -A-F] 
*Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil and 
Ors. 1999 (3) SCC 555 - relied on. 
D 
Case Law Reference: 
1999 (3) sec 555 
relied on 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6563 of 2010. 
E 
From the 

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