UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 1073 · Decided: 06-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 5 S.C.R. 1073 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6194 of 2013) 
MAY 06, 2014 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Government Grants Act, 1895: 
ss. 2, 3 -
Government Grant lands - Applicability of 
Transfer of Property Act - Held: Transfer of Property Act is 
A 
B 
c 
not applicable to Government Grant lands - Further; ·s.3 
makes it clear that Government Grants is to take effect 
according to their tenor, notwithstanding any rule of law, statute 
0 
or enactment of the legislature to the contrary - Therefore, the 
Government has unfettered discretion and u/s.3 can impose 
any condition, limitation or restriction in its grants and the 
rights, privileges and obligations of the grantee would be 
regulated only according to the terms of the grant itself though 
they may be inconsistent with the provisions of any statute or 
E 
common law - Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
Government Grant Land situated in cantonment area -
Power of Military Authorities to cancel. the grant - Held: Grant 
of land situated in cantonment area under the old grants form 
F 
a self contained provision prescribing the procedure as to the 
grant and resumption of the land - If land is resumed by 
Government in accordance with law, the grantee cannot take 
recourse to Civil Procedure Code or the Specific Relief Act 
against the Government. 
G 
Resumption of Government Grant land - Land on which 
suit property was built belonged to the government-
cantonment board - Allotted to grantee with permission to 
1073 
H 
1074 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A erect superstructure on it - Grantee sold the suit property to 
respondent with clear assurance to the authorities that 
respondent would exectJte such documents in favour of the 
Government as may be required under existing Rules - Right 
of respondent on the suit property - Held: Respondent has 
8 right only with regard to the structure built on the suit premises 
and the Government has right to resumption of suit premises 
on payment of value of superstructure - There is no landlord-
tenant relationship between the government and the grantee. 
The appellants had served resumption notice in 
C respect of suit property•comprising of main bungalow, 
servant quarter and garage situated in Cantonment Area 
upon the respondents which they had challenged before 
the High Court. The High Court had declared the 
resumption notice void, inoperative and without legal 
D effect. The connected matters before the Supreme Court 
were remitted back to the High Court. In light of that, the 
appeal by the appellant before the Supreme Court was 
declared infructuous without prejudice to their rights. The 
appellants filed review application against the said order 
E and same was disposed of recording the statement of 
Solicitor General to the effect that the Union of India 
would seek dispossession of the respondents from the 
suit property in accordance with law. 
F 
The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for possession, 
arrears of rent and damages against the defendants-
appellants in respect of the suit property. The defence of 
the appellant was that the property was held on old grant 
terms and, therefore, the government has every right to 
resume the property; that the land on which the suit 
G property was built belonged to the respondent Pune 
Cantonment board and was allotted by way of grant to 
one 'N' who had erected superstructure including 
bungalow, garage and servant quarter. In 1891, the said 
bungalow was bequeathed by 'N to his son 'M'. The name 
H 
UNION OF INDIA v. DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI 1075 
of 'M' was registered in the General Land Register 
A 
wherein it was mentioned that the bungalow in question 
was held under old grant under conditions of GGO 14 
dated 6th January 1827; the said fact was mentioned in 
the agreement and repairing lease dated 29th August, 
1941 between 'M' and the Governor General in council; 
B 
consent letter dated 19th December, 1967 written by 'M' 
to the Ministry Estates Officer showed that permission for 
sale of suit property in favour of the respondents was 
sought for by 'M' with clear assurance that the 
respondent would execute such documents in favour of c 1 
the State as may be required under the existing rules. 
The trial court partially decreed the suit on the 
ground of breach of terms and conditions of tenancy i.e. 
non-repair of suit premises and d

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