Back
High Court Of Delhi
DELHI SIMLA CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTER PRADESH - Respondent
Civil 1043 of 1967
Decided On : 02/07/1975
GOVERNMENT GRANTS ACT - LEASE OF LAND OUTSIDE TERRITORIAL LIMITS - APPLICABILITY OF LOCAL LAWS - RIGHT OF RE-ENTRY - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - [GOVERNMENT GRANTS ACT, 1895, SECTION 3; DELHI (URBAN AREAS) TENANTS RELIEF ACT, 1961; PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, owned lands in Delhi that were leased to it by the State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) under the Government Grants Act, 1895. The lease was for a period of five years and was set to expire. The petitioner claimed that it had spent significant funds developing the land and that it was entitled to continue in possession. The State of U.P. informed the petitioner that it would be auctioning the cultivation rights in the land and that the petitioner could bid if it wished. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to restrain the State of U.P. from forcibly evicting it.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government Grants Act, 1895, did not apply to the land in question because it was situated outside the territorial limits of U.P. The court further held that the local laws of Delhi, namely, the Delhi (Urban Areas) Tenants Relief Act, 1961, and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, applied to the land and that the petitioner could not be evicted except in accordance with those laws. The court also held that the State of U.P. could not rely on the right of re-entry contained in the lease agreement because it was not enforceable outside the territorial limits of U.P.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government Grants Act, 1895, applied to the land in question, which was situated outside the territorial limits of U.P.? 2. Whether the local laws of Delhi, namely, the Delhi (Urban Areas) Tenants Relief Act, 1961, and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, applied to the land in question? 3. Whether the State of U.P. could rely on the right of re-entry contained in the lease agreement to evict the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government Grants Act, 1895, did not apply to the land in question because it was situated outside the territorial limits of U.P. The State of U.P. had no legislative power with reference to properties situated outside its territorial limits. 2. The local laws of Delhi, namely, the Delhi (Urban Areas) Tenants Relief Act, 1961, and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, applied to the land in question. These laws provided for the protection of tenants against eviction and conferred certain rights on tenants, including the right to compensation for improvements made to the land. 3. The State of U.P. could not rely on the right of re-entry contained in the lease agreement to evict the petitioner because it was not enforceable outside the territorial limits of U.P. The right of re-entry was a contractual right that could only be exercised within the territorial limits of the State that granted the lease.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and restrained the respondents from ejecting the petitioner by exercising the right of re-entry and except in due course of law.
( 1 ) THE petitioner (Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and owns lands situated in the revenue estates of villages Okhla, Bahapur and Jogabai, said to be within the limits of the Delhi Municipal Corporation. Some lands were acquired by the State of U. P. tor the purpose of digging what was known as the Agra canal. The petitioner claims that land, measuring 20 bighas (field No. 31-A) in Kham village Jasola had been leased out by the State of U. P. for the Model Farms owned by the Petitioner society. Such a lease is said to have been granted as early as June, 1951, according to the allegations in the petition; it transpires that there were such leases for an earlier period also. The exact period for which the petitioner has been in possession of the lands is, however, not material for the present case. What is material is the grant said to have been made to the petitioner on 1-7-1962 under the Crown (now Government) Grants Act, 1895. The petitioner society which has been having perpetual leasehold rights in 26. 016 acres (part of what is known as old Mughal canal) is cultivating these lands also under the name and style of "model Farms", Masihgarh. It is alleged that the petitioner society has spent thousands of rupees in developing and filling the said canal to make it fit for cultivation. The above grant, made on 1-7-1962, was for a period of five years; prior to that the leases granted earlier had been successively renewed. By a communication dated 29-5-1967 the petitioner was informed that the rights of cultivation in the said land were being auctioned on 20-6-1967 and that the petitioner might bid at the said auction if it so desired. It is further alleged that when the petitioner s representative met the Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer (respondents 3 and 4) of the U. P. Government in connection with the abovesaid communication he was informed that this was done merely with a view to fix the lease money for a further period of six years starting from the first day of July, 1967. But on 10-6-1967 the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 4 that the auction would be proceeded with and that if the petitioner was not the highest bidder ejectment would follow. The petitioner gave a notice through their counsel claiming rights as tenant under the Delhi (Urban Areas) Tenants Relief Act, 1961 and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. As soon as the respondent No. 4 orally informed the petitioner s representative that there were orders for ejecting the petitioner society, the present writ petition was filed with a prayer to restrain such forcible eviction pending disposal of the writ petition.
( 2 ) AN affidavit has been filed by Shri S. K. Sharma, Assistant Engineer No. 1, Upper Division Agra Canal, Okhla in opposition to the writ petition claiming that the land was granted to the petitioner under a registered deed dated 19-12-1962 (Annexure A in reply to the stay application) for five years from 1-7- 1962 to 30-6-1967 on the terms and conditions mentioned therein and that the said grant was under the Government Grants Act (Act XV of 1895 ). The allegation that the amount was spent by the petitioner for developing the land and to make it fit for cultivation has been denied. The allegation in the petition that the petitioner s representative was assured by respondents 3 and 4 after communication dated 29-5-1967 that auction was only to fix the lease money was denied. It was claimed that the respondents were within their rights to hold an auction, enter into a fresh grant with the petitioner and eject it, if it did not offer the highest bid. It was contended that the possession of the petitioner after the expiry of the period fixed in the grant, namely, 30-6-1967, was unauthorised and that the petitioner was thereafter a trespasser. It was denied that the lands are situate within the Delhi Municipal Corporation limits. It was contended that Section 3
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
