Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1997) 05 SC CK 0033

Smt. Ratan Kaur vs Union of India and others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 2 May 1997 · Citation: AIR 1997 SC 2723 : (1997) AIRSCW 2695 : (1997) 6 JT 21 : (1997) 4 SCALE 313 : (1997) 10 SCC 61 : (1997) 1 SCR 48 Supp : (1997) 6 Supreme 46

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · D. P. Wadhwa, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 3639 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 299 words
1.

Delay condoned.

2.

Leave granted.

3.

Originally the land of an extent of 68 acres, 7 kanal and 11 marlas situated in Andaman & Nicobar Islands was assigned on May 1, 1922 to Khansahib Naban Ali for 30 years. After his demise in 1947, his widow Smt. Noorjahan Begum had transferred the land in the name of father-in-law of the appellant in the year 1949-50. Mutation was effected by an officer in the name of appellant after the demise of her father-in-law. She filed an application for assignment. That was rejected. On a writ petition filed in the High Court, the learned single Judgment directed grant of assignment. In Writ Appeal No. 2490/93, by judgment and order dated July 25, 1995, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ appeal and held that she had no right for second renewal after the expiry of 30 years. Since under the covenant, the predecessor-in-interest was entitled to only one renewal, after the first renewal, she had no right. Rejection of her application for assignment is quite legal. The view taken by the High Court is correct. The lands absolutely belonged to the Government and they were assigned to Khansahib Naban Ali. The assignee has a right only for one renewal. Admittedly, the lease was made in May 1922. After the expiry of 30 years in 1952, further renewal for another 30 years having been rejected, she had no right for assignment. The rejection of the application for renewal of grant is clearly intra vires.

4.

It is stated that the appellant does not have any house to accommodate large family. In that view, we direct the respondents to consider grant of suitable land for construction of the house.

5.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.