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

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 139043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
STATE – Appellant
Versus
RAVI KUMAR – Respondent
SA No.66 of 1987 | FA No. 27 of 2006 | FA No. 28 of 2006 | FA No. 29 of 2006 | FA No. 30 of 2006



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Tewari, Sunil Khera
For the Respondents: D.S. Patni, Dharmendra Barthwal, Lalit Sharma

Under the Government Grants Act, 1895, the terms and conditions of a government grant override contrary legal provisions, statutes, or court decrees, unless the legislation specifically concerns land acquisition, land reforms, or agricultural land ceilings.

Headnote:The matter involves the interpretation of the Government Grants Act, 1895 and the amendment introduced by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1960. The case pertains to whether Bhumidhari rights can be claimed over land that was leased under the Government Grants Act, specifically where the lease had expired in 1954. The primary issue is whether the terms of a government grant override other legal provisions. The court observed that under Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, provisions and limitations in a grant take effect according to their tenor, notwithstanding any rule of law or statute to the contrary, except for enactments relating to land acquisition, land reforms, or ceiling on agricultural lands. List this case on 23.12.2025.

Table of Content
1. the overriding nature of government grant terms over contrary statutes. (Para 4 , 5)
2. the impact of lease expiration on the claim for benefits. (Para 6)
3. procedural scheduling of the case. (Para 7)

SL. Office Notes,

No. Date reports, orders or proceedings COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures

Mr. Yogesh Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State/appellant.

2. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/1 and 2/2.

3. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2/3.

4. Yesterday, Mr. Sunil Khera, learned Deputy Advocate General made certain submissions by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, however, today he is not available. Now the matter is being posted because certain more issues has been raised by the learned counsel for the parties particularly on the issue whether anyone can claim Bhumidhari rights over the land which was leased out under the Government Grants Act. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari placed reliance to para 78 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Express New spapers Pvt. Ltd. And others vs. Union of I ndia and others (1986) 1 SCC 133 which is being extracted herein below:-

“78. It is plain upon the terms that Section 2 excludes the operation of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to Government grants. While Section 3 declares that all provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations contained over any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and shall take effect according to their tenor, notwithstanding any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary. A series of judicial decisions have determined the overriding effect of Section 3 making it amply clear that a grant of property by the Government partakes of the nature of law since it overrides even legal provisions which are contrary to the tenor of the document.”

5. In support of such submissions he also bring to the notice of this Court the amendment to The Government Grants Act, 1895, by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1960 particularly sub section 3 of Section 2 which read as under:-

“(3) Certain leases made by or on behalf of the Government to take effect according to their tenor—All provisions, restrictions conditions and limitations contained in any such creation, conferment or grant referred to in Section 2, shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any decree or direction of a Court of law or any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature, to the contrary notwithstanding :

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent, or deemed ever to have prevented the effect or any enactment relating to the acquisition of property, land reforms or the imposition of ceiling on agricultural lands.”

6. By referring this amended provision Mr. Yogesh Tiwari submits that since in this particular case the lease was already expired in 1954 therefore no benefit is conferred upon the petitioner.

7. List this case on 23.12.2025.

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