SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 459

2012 (4) Supreme 548
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(G.S. Singhvi & Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.)
Azim Ahmad Kazmi And Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 2003 with Civil Appeal No. 2007 of 2003
Decided on : 16-07-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Resumption of leased land in terms of the lease deed made under the Government Grants Act, 1895 is valid in law.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14 – Similarly situated leases had been resumed earlier in terms of the lease deed and without resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Taking similar action against present lessees – Not discriminatory. (Para 15)

        (b) Government Grants Act, 1895 – Section 3 r/w Clause 3(C) of the Lease deed – For resumption of possession, the lease takes effect according to its tenor – Unfettered discretion to Government to impose such conditions and limitation as it thinks fit – Resumption made in accordance with Clause 3(C) of the lease deed – Valid. (Paras 18 and 20)

        AIR 1973 SC 2520 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        1. A lease-deed of the demised premises was executed by the respondent- State in favour of the appellants-lessees followed by a renewal of lease.

        2. The State Government cancelled the lease deed and proceeded to resume the demised premises which was informed to the appellants by the District Magistrate.

        3. The objection preferred by the lessee was rejected.

        4. The lessees preferred a writ petition against the order passed by the State Government and the notices passed by the District Magistrate, which was dismissed but with the observation that the State Government is not entitled to take forcible possession though it may take possession of the demised premises in accordance with the procedure established by law.

        5. The lessees are aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition whereby the order of cancellation of lease deed was affirmed, whereas the State Government is aggrieved against the last portion of the order whereunder it was mentioned that the State Government is not entitled to take forcible possession though it may take possession in accordance with the procedure established by law.

       Finding of the Court:

        Resumption of the land in terms of clause 3(C) of the lease deed is valid.

       

JUDGMENT

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.-These appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 7.12.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby the writ petition preferred by lessee – Azim Ahmad Kazmi and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) was dismissed with certain observations.

2. A lease-deed of the demised premises was executed by the respondent- State in favour of the appellants on 19th March, 1996 followed by a renewal of lease dated 17th July, 1998. The State Government vide order dated 15th December, 2000 cancelled the lease deed and proceeded to resume the demised premises which was informed to the appellants by the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 11th January, 2001. The objection preferred by the appellants was rejected on 24th August, 2001. The appellants preferred a writ petition against the order dated 15th December, 2000 passed by the State Government, the notice dated 11th January, 2001 and the order dated 24th August, 2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad which was dismissed but with the observation that the State Government is not entitled to take forcible possession though it may take possession of the demised premises in accordance with the procedure established by law. The appellants are aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition whereby the order of cancellation of lease deed was affirmed, whereas the State Government is aggrieved against the last portion of the order whereunder it was mentioned that the State Government is not entitled to take forcible possession though it may take possession in accordance with the procedure established by law.

3. The dispute relates to Plot No. 59, Civil Station, Allahabad having an area of 1 acre and 4272 sq. yards (9112 sq. yards or 7618 sq. meters). Initially, a lease of aforesaid plot was granted in favour of one Thomas Crowby for a period of 50 years on 11th January, 1868 by the then Secretary of State for India in Council and it was signed by the Commissioner of Allahabad Division. A fresh lease was executed in favour of his successor for another period of 50 years on 12.4.1923 which was to operate from 1.1.1918. With the permission of the Collector, Allahabad, the successors of the lessee transferred their lease hold rights in favour of one Purshottam Das in the year 1945. According to appellants on 31st October, 1958, the legal representative of said Purshottam Das transferred the lease-hold rights in favour of appellant no. 7-Smt. Shakira Khatoon Kazmi, appellant no. 6- Smt. Sabira Khatoon Kazmi and their mother-Smt. Maimoona Khatoon Kazmi. The appellant no. 1- Azim Ahmad Kazmi, appellant no. 5- Omar Ahmad Kazmi, appellant no. 2- Shamim Ahmad Kazmi, appellant no. 3- Alim Ahmad Kazmi and appellant no. 4- Maaz Ahmad Kazmi are heirs of late Smt. Maimoona Khatoon Kazmi. The lease, which had been granted on 12th April, 1923 expired on 31st December, 1967 but the same was not renewed for a long period. Subsequently, a fresh lease deed was executed on behalf of Governor of Uttar Pradesh in favour of some of the appellants and their ancestors on 19th March, 1996 for a period of 30 years which was to operate with effect from 1.1.1996. This deed contained a clause that the lease deed may be renewed for two successive terms of 30 years each but the total period shall not exceed 90 years including the original term. The period of this deed expired on 31st December, 1997 and on 17th July, 1998 which was renewed for a further period of 30 years w.e.f. 1st January, 1998. Subsequently the State Government passed an order on 15th December, 2000 for cancelling the lease deed and resuming the possession of the plot in question. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, thereafter gave a notice dated 11th January, 2001 to the appellants intimating them that the State Government had passed an order dated 15th December, 2000 cancelling the lease and resuming possession of the plot in question as th


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top