Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAM RATAN GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 03/28/1983
GOVERNMENT GRANTS ACT - LEASE - CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING - FORFEITURE - WAIVER - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of Maharani Bagh House Building Co-operative Society, was granted a sub-lease of a plot in Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, by the President of India. The sub-lease required the petitioner to erect a residential building within two years. The petitioner submitted plans but due to a change in the plot number, the plans were not sanctioned. The petitioner was granted an extension of time up to 31-12-1970, and he obtained sanction for the plan from the Municipal Corporation and began construction. Meanwhile, the Lt. Governor issued a general circular extending the period for construction up to 30-9-1971. Despite that circular, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) served the petitioner with a registered letter asking him to hand over the plot. The petitioner replied that the construction was almost complete except for the roofing of one room, finishing, and plastering. The petitioner informed the DDA that the construction of the dwelling house on the plot had been completed and obtained a construction certificate from the Municipal Corporation. Yet, the Lt. Governor cancelled the sub-lease under the provisions of clause III thereof. The petitioner challenged the determination of the sub-lease and the threat to take possession as illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, and ultra vires.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Government Grants Act, 1895, does not apply to Crown Grants, but the scope of Section 3 is that it saves provisions, restrictions, conditions, and limitations over, contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute, or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding. However, the Government has unfettered discretion to impose any conditions, limitations, or restrictions in its grants, and the rights, privileges, and obligations of the grantee would be regulated according to the terms of the grant, notwithstanding any provisions of any statutory or common law. The Court further held that the completion of one room tenement on the land within the time allowed by the general circular will amount to substantial compliance with Clause II (5) of the sub-lease. The Court directed that the impugned order be set aside and the DDA may regularise the matter and issue fresh permission upon payment of penalty as has been done in like cases.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government Grants Act, 1895, applies to Crown Grants? 2. Whether the petitioner had breached the covenant to erect a residential building within the stipulated time? 3. Whether the DDA was justified in cancelling the sub-lease?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government Grants Act, 1895, does not apply to Crown Grants, but the scope of Section 3 is that it saves provisions, restrictions, conditions, and limitations over, contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute, or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding. However, the Government has unfettered discretion to impose any conditions, limitations, or restrictions in its grants, and the rights, privileges, and obligations of the grantee would be regulated according to the terms of the grant, notwithstanding any provisions of any statutory or common law. 2. The completion of one room tenement on the land within the time allowed by the general circular will amount to substantial compliance with Clause II (5) of the sub-lease. 3. The DDA was not justified in cancelling the sub-lease without giving the petitioner an opportunity to remedy the breach.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the DDA to regularise the matter and issue fresh permission upon payment of penalty as has been done in like cases.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was a member of the Maharani Bagh House Building Co-operative Society. On 31-5-1965 a tripartite deed of perpetual sub-lease was executed between the President of India the lessor, Maharani Bagh House Building Co-operative Society the lessee and the petitioner the sub-lessee in respect of a plot in Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, mentioned in the said deed. It was registered on 4-6-1965. Under the terms of the sub-lease, the petitioner was required within a period of two years computed from 1-1-1965 to erect upon the said plot in a substantial and workman like manner a residential building in accordance with a sanctioned plan and to the satisfaction of Municipal and other authorities. The petitioner submitted the plans but due to change in the number of the plot, the plans were not sanctioned.
( 3 ) HOWEVER, on 16-8-1969, the Lt. Governor sent a notice that since the petitioner had not erected a good and substantial building for purposes of private dwelling up to 30-5-1967, he has committed a breach of clause II (5) of the sub-lease and was directed to show cause within 30 days why the conveyance be not determined and the possession of the said plot be not taken back. On 1-9-1969 the petitioner replied that he had submitted the building plans to the Delhi Municipal Corporation, but the same were rejected because the number of the plot had been changed on site. On 20-4-1970, the petitioner was informed that as sufficient cause has not been shown, the sub-lease has been cancelled by the Lt. Governor and the petitioner was called upon to deliver possession of the plot to the DDA at 8. 00 a. m. on 13-5-1970. The petitioner applied on 2-5-1970 for extension of time by one year to complete the building. He stated that he could not undertake construction on account of financial difficulties. He was granted extension of time up to 31-12-1970 on 26-5-1970, the petitioner obtained sanction for the plan from the Municipal Corporation and thereafter began construction. Meanwhile, on 9-6-1971, the Lt. Governor issued a general circular (Annexure H) that the period for construction will be extended up to 30-9-1971. Thereafter, another extension up to four years could be allowed on payment of penalty at the rates specified in the said circular. Clause 6 of that circular stipulated that the sub-lease will be determined only if construction is not completed within seven years. Despite that circular, the Delhi Development Authority (herein DDA) served the petitioner with a registered letter dated 9-8-1971 asking him to hand over the plot at 10. 00 a. m. on 20-10-1971. The petitioner sent a reply on 18-8-1971 that the construction was almost complete except the roofing of one room, finishing and plastering. This could not be done on account of shortage of labour and material. On 28-9- 1971, the petitioner informed the DDA that the construction of the dwelling house on the plot has been completed. He obtained a construction certificate from the Municiple pal Corporation on 5-1-1972 and began to be assessed to house-tax, water-tax and other charges of the Corporation. Yet by a notice dated 11-10-1973 (which was received by him on 23-10-1973), the petitioner was informed that the Lt. Governor has cancell- ed the sub-lease under the provisions of clause III thereof. He was called upon to hand over possession at 11. 00 a. m. on 23-10-1973. On 27-10-1973 the petitioner made a- represe
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
