S. 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 does not totally exclude the application of all the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to lands held under grant from the Government.

1. Both the writ petitions have raised common questions of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In both the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Assistant Secretary, Metropolitan Development, Salt Lake Branch, Sech Bhawan, Government of West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Secretary) rejecting the prayers of the writ petitioners for mutation of their names in respect of the plots in question at Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake City, Calcutta. The prayers for mutation of the names of the writ petitioners, in respect of the plots in question, were rejected by the Assistant Secretary by holding that the transfers of the plots in question, made in favour of the writ petitioners by registered Deeds of Transfer executed by the original lessees, were not valid in view of S. 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which the application of the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the T.P. Act) had been excluded in respect of any transfer of land and interest thereon made by the Government.

3. The grounds on which the applications for mutation were rejected by the Assistant Secretary had been considered by me in a recent decision reported Prabir Kumar Kar vs. State of West Bengal & other, 1992 (2) CLJ 261. Ordinarily, I would have delivered a short order relying on my aforesaid decision. But in view of the argument advanced by Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the State respondents, I thought it fit to explain the reported decision and also to consider the submission rendered by Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the respondents sought to argue that the aforesaid decision reported in 1992(2) CLJ 261 really had helped the State respondents. He tried to persuade me to hold that in view of the said decision, the orders passed by the Assistant Secretary could not be interfered with in exercise of my power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this submission, Mr. Chatterjee took me through paragraph 11 of the said decision. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that as I had held in the said decision that the provisions of the T.P. Act could not be made applicable to grants and/or transfers made by the Government and that all prohibitions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained in any Government grant or transfer shall be valid and take effect according to the tenure, no right had been vested to the original lessees to transfer the plots in question to the writ petitioners. It was further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that Clause VII of the Lease Deeds would show that the lessees were not entitled to sub-divide or sub-let the plots in question or the buildings to be constructed without the consent in writing of the Government, and, therefore, the Government shall have the right to refuse to accept transfer of the plots in question in its absolute discretion. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that in view of S. 3 of the Act also, it was open to the Assistant Secretary to refuse such prayers for mutation.

5. So far as the first submission of Mr. Chatterjee is concerned, I am of the view that Mr. Chatterjee misapplied the principles laid down in the said decision. If we read the entire judgment, particularly the paragraphs 11 and 12 of the same, there cannot be any difficulty in understanding that in the said decision, it has been held that S. 2 of the Act cannot be applied in case of Government grants where no restriction or limitation concerning the transfer of interest of a property relating to any grant of the Government has/had been imposed in the grant itself. Since an argument was advanced by the learned Advocate for the State respondents that my observations in paragraph 11 of the said decision would show that in case of Government grants, no transfer could be made by the lessee in respect of the plot in question,