The court held that lease conditions must be adhered to, and the Government has the authority to resume land for violations, reaffirming the classification of B-2 land under its management.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The lis on hand has been instituted challenging the revisional order passed by the Government confirming the order of the District Collector.

2. The facts in brief would show that the original lease of the subject land in S.No.1460 of St.Thomas Village, was granted by the East lndia Company for a term of 50 years from 01.11.1802 in favour of the predecessors in-title to Thiru.Krishnaswamy Chetty and Thiru.Govindarajulu Chetty. The second and third spell of leases for a period in each case of 50 years from 1.11.1802 to 01.11.1902 were renewed by the Secretary of State of India, Council in favour of the lessee viz., East India Company. Third spell of lease executed by the Secretary of State on 27.09.1944 for a period of 50 years from 1.11.1902 in favour of the lessee expired on 31.10.1952. During the existence of the lease, the legal heirs of the lessee transferred the leasehold rights to Saiyid Gul Mohammed Yarya Karim Suhrawardy alias Hilal Karim for Rs.6,500/- through a Sale Deed No.552/1932 dated 02.04.1932. Subsequently, the Government sanctioned renewal of lease in favour of G.S.A.Kareem in October 1954 for a period of 30 years from 01.11.1952 subject to the payment of annual premium of Rs.1027.80 and an annual assessment of Rs.51-6-0 and also subject to the provisions of Cantonment (Housing Accommodation) Act 1923. The lease granted for 30 years expired on 31.10.1982.

3. The lessee had given the subject premises on sub-lease to one Doctor(Miss)Cornelious. The Government found that the conditions of lease had been violated. The lease was granted under the Contonment (Housing Accommodation) Act 1923 only to utilise the land for dwelling purpose. Thus, lease conditions would show that the leased lands cannot be used for any other purpose other then dwelling purposes and in the event of violation, the Government is empowered to cancel the lease and resume the Government land. The Government found that several conditions were violated. More particularly, as per Condition II, premises shall not be used for any other purpose other than dwelling house. Condition XII(1) provides that the house shall not be occupied for the purpose of Hospital, Bank, Hotel, Shop or School or by a railway administration without the previous sanction of the Officer Commanding the division given with the concurrence of the local Government. Evidently, the leased premises are not been used for dwelling purpose and having been used for the purpose of a School, the previous written sanction of the competent authority as envisaged in condition XII (I) had not been obtained. Thus, Conditions II and XII also found to be violated. Condition V states that every person to whom the lease is devolved, by transfer by succession or by operation of law, shall give to the cantonment authority within one month from the date of such devolution, notice in writing of the fact of such devolution. This condition also had been violated. In that, Thiru K.Hilal, the legal representative of the lessee has not given notice as contemplated in Condition V. Condition VII contemplates that the lease shall forward an attested copy of the agreement to the Cantonment authority, if the lessee lets the house to any person other than military officer or a civil officer.

4. The lessee violated several conditions of the lease, which resulted in issuance of show cause notice to the legal heirs of the lessee Thiru.K.Hillal. No reply had been received in response to the show cause notice. Thus, the Government concluded that the lessee had no objections on the proposed actions. Accordingly, Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.935, Revenue Department dated 28.04.1977 for resumption of subject land.

5. Challenging the Government o