S.1 Title and extent

       (1) This Act may be called the {" Subs.by the A.O.1950 for "Crown ".}[Government] Grants Act 1895.
       (2) It extends to the whole of India except {Subs, by the Adaptation of Laws (No.2) Order, 1956 for " Part B States".}[the territories which immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Par B States] { The word " and " at the end of sub-section (2).and sub-section (3).rep.by, Act 10 of 1914, s.3 and Sch.II.}.

Legal Comments- "Introduction" - Government Grants Act, 1895 (GG Act) governs grants or transfers by the Government and excludes such grants from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 3 preserves all grant terms notwithstanding contrary laws. [00200024991]- "What Section Says" - Section 3 of GG Act provides that all provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations in such grants shall take effect according to their tenor, notwithstanding other laws; transfers remain subject to the grant's terms. [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal] [Anarkali VS State of U. P. ]- "Essential ingredients" - Government grants; exclusion of TP Act; preservation of grant terms; non-retroactivity concerns; possibility of resumption by government subject to grant conditions; applicability across states with amendments (e.g., UP amendments). [The Secretary Of State For India In VS Mahaboob Sir Frazvant Sri Raja] [Prakati Rai VS State of U. P. ]- "Scope of Section" - Section 3 saves grant conditions across Crown/government grants; not limited to TP Act; applies to pre- and post-enactment grants; UP amendments broaden/modify scope (e.g., Section 2 excludes TP Act, Tenancy Acts in UP). [Nallanna Gounder VS Muthuswamy Gounder] [Usha Rani Gupta VS State of U. P. through the Chief Secretary]- "Punishment for Section" - GG Act 1895 itself deals with rights and obligations; penalties not ordinarily criminal under this section; violations typically addressed via eviction, resumption, or civil remedies under grant terms; not a standalone criminal provision. See citations showing enforcement through civil remedies. [AJANTA BASU VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL]- "Commentary" - Section 3 creates ‘unfettered governmental discretion’ to impose conditions; grantees’ rights are governed solely by grant terms, even if incompatible with TP Act or other laws. This can complicate challenges to resumption or transfer. [02100079579]- "Comment" - Jurisprudence consistently recognizes GG Act as declaratory and protective of government grant terms; transfer/alienation may be restricted or conditioned; the Act excludes TP Act applicability for such grants. [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal] [Kartheepan Tourist Bus Service VS The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others]- "Comment" - In Salt Lake City cases (Calcutta/West Bengal contexts), courts held GG Act apply to leases granted by Government and exclude TP Act; mutation rights depend on grant terms and absence of transfer prohibition. [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal] [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal]- "Comment" - Section 2 (UP amendment) and Section 3 (UP amendment) align to shield government grants from TP Act and related tenancy acts with carve-outs for land reform; impacts mutation, transferability, and resumption. [Indian Press Pvt. Limited VS State of U. P. ]- "Comment" - Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) and GG Act function as a comprehensive framework to preserve governmental conditions on land grants; the Crown/State can resume lands if grant terms permit, subject to constitutional protections. [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government]- "Comment" - When a government grant is deemed to be outside TP Act, aspects such as transfer restrictions, sub-letting prohibitions, or conditions in grant deeds govern; courts interpret deed terms rather than statutory transfer provisions. [RAMA KRISHNA SEVA KENDRA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL]- "Comment" - In cases where lease deeds include explicit transfer restrictions among co-shares or sub-leases, courts assess whether such restrictions fall within the grant’s terms; if so, transfer may be restricted per Section 2/3. [Tarachand Dalmia VS State of West Bengal]- "Comment" - Section 3’s unfettered discretion is tempered by provisos in amendments (e.g., UP amendment) that preserve statutes relating to acquisition, land reforms, or ceilings; those later statutes may override grant terms in specific contexts. [Usha Rani Gupta VS State of U. P. through the Chief Secretary]- "Comment" - In modern jurisprudence, Section 3 is invoked to validate government-imposed conditions on grants, including feasibility of re-entry/resumption for public purposes; it is not a license to ignore due process where required by other statutes. [RAM RATAN GUPTA VS UNION OF INDIA]- "Comment" - The Act’s reach extends to pattas, sanads, and inam-type instruments; such documents are treated as government grants and insulated from TP Act or Registration Act requirements, except where contrary legal developments apply. [Legal Representatives of Jasraj VS Dhingarmal]- "Comment" - In mutations or transfers under Salt Lake or Delhi Nazul contexts, Section 2 and 3 of GG Act guide whether transfer requires TP Act compliance; courts have allowed mutation where grant terms permit transfer and do not restrict assignment. [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal] [SHRIMATI NATHI DEVI KULTHIN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL]- "Comment" - The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Crown/Government Grants Act aims to remove doubts about TP Act’s applicability to government grants and preserve governmental discretion in grant terms. [Hajee S. V. M. Mohamed Jamaludeen Brothers And Company VS Government Of T. N. ]- "Comment" - Several decisions emphasize that a grant may not require a sale deed for conveyance when made by government; title vesting occurs through grant instruments consistent with GG Act, not TP Act. [Punjab State Through Collector VS Lala Shiv Dayal]- "Comment" - Where a lease is treated as a government grant, the grant’s tenor controls; retrospective amendments intended to protect or constrain grants remain binding subject to constitutional limits. [HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI]- "Comment" - In some instances, courts have refused to treat government-granted lands as subject to normal sale/deed regimes; Section 3 keeps grant terms intact even where other laws would otherwise apply. [005?] - "Source references" - The above points synthesize multiple cited authorities including: Government Grants Act, 1895 (Section 3) excerpts; UP amendments; Madras Madras City Tenants Protection Act interplay; landmark cases on mutation, transfer, and resumption; and comparative state-of-law discussions. [00200024991] [State of Madras represented by the Collector of Madras VS T. M. Oosman Haji and Co. , Madras] [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal] [RAM RATAN GUPTA VS UNION OF INDIA] [Anarkali VS State of U. P. ]

S.2 Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not to apply to government grants

Nothing in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contained shall apply or be deemed ever to have applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made { Subs, by the A.O.1937 for " by or on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen Empress, Her heirs or successors, or by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council."}[by or on behalf of the Government] to, or in favour of, an person whomsoever; but every such grant and transfer shall be construed and take effect as if the said Act had not been passed.

S.3 Government grants to take effect according to their tenor

All 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.

Legal Comments

• "Scope of Section 3" - Section 3 states that government grants take effect according to their tenor and all provisions/conditions in grants are valid notwithstanding contrary laws; transfers under Government Grants Act are exempt from the Transfer of Property Act; this confers unfettered discretion to grantees to impose terms - [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government]

• "Essential idea of Section 3" - Section 3 creates a special regime for government grants, preserving grant-specific terms over any general law; it prioritizes grant terms over statutory rules like TP Act, ensuring the Crown’s prerogative remains intact - [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government]

• "Unfettered discretion of Government" - Section 3: Government may impose any conditions/limitations in its grants, irrespective of other statutes or common law; grantee rights are governed solely by grant terms - [02100054175]

• "Non-application of TP Act to grants" - Section 2 of GG Act explicitly states Transfer of Property Act does not apply to government grants; Section 3 then preserves grant terms; this creates a special regime for Crown/ Government grants - [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government]

• "Resumption and conditions" - Where grant terms allow resumption for public purpose, government can resume with due process as per the grant; resumption can be invoked even if other laws would otherwise apply, but must align with grant tenor - [Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa VS Late Surgeon Vice Admiral GP Panda Through his Legal Heirs], [SHAKIRA KHATOON KAZMI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH]

• "Natural justice and resumption" - Courts have recognized that where grants contain explicit resumption terms, the government’s action may be valid even if general law would require process; however, waiver of rights or implicit condonation may be scrutinized depending on the grant language - [Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation of Orissa VS Late Surgeon Vice Admiral GP Panda Through his Legal Heirs], [01100024236]

• "Cross-jurisdictional application" - GG Act Section 3 has been invoked in disputes concerning land outside territorial limits (e.g., Delhi, UP, Maharashtra contexts); courts repeatedly reaffirm that Section 3 governs grant tenure and overrides conflicting local statutes - [DELHI SIMLA CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE VS STATE OF UTTER PRADESH], [KEWAL KRISHEN WAHI VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY], [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal]

• "Charge for consent vs. tax" - Courts have held that charges/fees demanded for permissions under lease/transfer can be viewed as fees for consent under grant terms, not as general taxes; illegality arises if the grant does not expressly authorize such charges - [KEWAL KRISHEN WAHI VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY], [RUBY ADVERTISERS VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY]

• "Unearned increment and conversion issues" - Where government grants/leases include no provision for unearned increment charges, attempting to collect such charges is typically invalid; conversion discussions rely on the grant’s tenor and not on general tax-like impositions - [KEWAL KRISHEN WAHI VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY], [Delhi Development Authority VS Karamdeep Finance & Investment (I) Pvt. Ltd. ]

• "Application to Nazul and crown grants" - For Nazul land or Crown grants, the grant terms govern; Section 3 can validate restrictive covenants on alienation, and Crown Grants Act XV of 1895 supports validity of restrictions; transfers may be barred absent consent under grant terms - [Abhishek Shukla VS High Court of Judicature, Allahabad], [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal], [02100079579]

• "Public interest and conversion policies" - Conversion from leasehold to freehold under grant terms may be constrained by pre-existing conversion policies; courts have emphasized that conversion policies cannot override express grant terms and statutory framework of Government Grants Act - [JOR BAGH ASSOCIATION (REGD) VS UNION OF INDIA], [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal]

• "Effect on tenants' protections" - When grants prevail, certain tenant protections under local statutes (e.g., Madras Tenants Protection Act) may be overridden unless the statute explicitly excludes government grants; Section 3 preserves grant terms over such statutory protections - [State of Madras represented by the Collector of Madras VS T. M. Oosman Haji and Co. , Madras]

• "Application to outside-territory leases" - For government grants of land outside territorial limits, the principle remains that section 3 saves grant tenor and may render local laws inapplicable; courts have recognized this in Delhi/U.P. contexts - [DELHI SIMLA CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE VS STATE OF UTTER PRADESH], [SUNIL VASUDEVA VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY]

• "Consequences for lessees" - Lessees hold rights only to the extent provided by the grant; without express grant-based rights to transfer or sublet, a lessee cannot unilaterally transfer or claim rights beyond grant tenor; government may resume per grant terms - [KEWAL KRISHEN WAHI VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY], [State Of U. P. VS Zahoor Ahmad]

• "Public policy angle" - Supreme Court lineage emphasizes that government grants are to be construed by their tenor and are not easily overridden by general law; this supports the government’s ability to enforce grant-specific restrictions even when such restrictions affect occupiers/tenants - [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal], [Abhishek Shukla VS High Court of Judicature, Allahabad]

• "Effect of repeals and savings" - Repeal or amendments of related acts do not automatically erase Section 3’s effect if savings clauses preserve grant tenor; courts apply the savings to maintain grant validity where applicable - [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government]

• "Litigation approach for disputes" - In many cases, courts emphasize examining the exact grant document (its clauses and conditions) to determine whether a demanded action (transfer, resumption, damages, or conversion) is permissible; general statutory arguments yield to grant language - [Delhi Development Authority VS Karamdeep Finance & Investment (I) Pvt. Ltd. ], [KEWAL KRISHEN WAHI VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY]

• "Procedural guidance from Section 3" - Section 3 itself does not outline a ventional court process; rather, it asserts the grant's terms govern, enabling or limiting actions; where process is required, it flows from the grant terms and applicable savings provisions - [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government], [State Of U. P. VS Zahoor Ahmad]

• "Key caveat" - If a grant lacks express authorization for a requested action (e.g., unearned increase, transfer by consent), authorities cannot impose it; the grant's tenor governs, and courts have invalidated improper charges or resumptions not supported by the grant - [KEWAL KRISHEN WAHI VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY], [Raja Rajinder Chand VS Sukhi]

• "Precedent anchor" - Notable decisions confirm that Crown Grants Act (XV of 1895) is declaratory, not ultra vires, and that Section 3’s tenor-based approach should govern Crown/government grants as the controlling rule in land/tenure disputes - [The Secretary Of State For India In VS Mahaboob Sir Frazvant Sri Raja], [02100079579]

• "Summary takeaway" - Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 enshrines the principle that government grants take effect according to their tenor, preserving grant-specific terms over general law, and granting unfettered discretion to grantors to impose conditions; the practical effect is to shield government grants from standard statutory constraints except where the grant itself provides otherwise - [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government], [Abhishek Shukla VS High Court of Judicature, Allahabad]

• "Note on stamp duty exemption cases" - Stamp duty exemptions claimed under a government order related to land grants are subject to the grant tenor and statutory caps; exemptions are not automatically granted beyond prescribed periods, reinforcing grant-based scrutiny - [Kartheepan Tourist Bus Service VS The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others]

• "Note on encroachment and eviction" - Where grants apply, eviction and encroachment issues hinge on grant terms and relevant local acts; government can resume or evict only as permitted by the grant and procedural law, not by general eviction rules - [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government], [Ganga Malhotra VS Land and Development Officer]

• "Note on mutations and transfer" - Mutation decisions respecting grant lands must respect grant terms; attempting to mutate or transfer outside grant tenor may be challenged and reversed if not supported by grant language - [Mahesh Kumar Goyal VS State of West Bengal], [S. P. ARORA VS AJIT SINGH]

• "Summarized principle for practitioners" - When confronting Government Grants Act Section 3 issues, focus on the grant instrument itself, its clauses, the tenor of the grant, and applicable savings; treat Section 3 as a shield for grant terms against contrary statutory regimes, and treat Section 2 as excluding general TP Act implications for government lands - [Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. , Rep. by its Director M. B. Haja VS State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Principal Secretary to Government], [Union of India VS Dinshaw Shapoorji Anklesari]

• "Caution for litigants" - Claims relying on general statutory rights (e.g., TP Act, modern property statutes) should be carefully assessed against grant terms; where grant terms are silent or restrictive, the government’s rights to resume, convert, or impose conditions may prevail - [KEWAL KRISHEN WAHI VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY], [SHAKIRA KHATOON KAZMI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH]