Kaur Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 494 (2 May 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice d.P. Wadhwa Om Prakash Dubey, R.D.
Upadhyay and Subrata Das, Advs. for the appellant M.S. Usgaocar,additional
Solicitor General, Dhruv Mehta, D.S. Mehra, Advs. with him for the Respondents
The following order of thecourt was delivered:
O R D
E R Delay condoned.
land of an extentof 68 acres, 7 Kanal and 11marlas situated in Andaman & NicobarIslands
was assigned on May1, 1922to Khansahib Naban Ali for 30 years.
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 year1949-50. Mutation was
effected by an officerin thename of appellant after the demise of her
father-in-law. She filed an applicationfor assignment.That was rejected. On a
writ petition filed in the High Court, the learned single Judge directed grant
of assignment. IN writ Appeal No. 2490/93, by judgmentand order datedJuly 25,1995,
the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowedthe writ appeal and held thatshe
hadno right for second renewal after the expiryof 30 years. Since under the
covenant, the predecessor-in-interest was entitled toonly one renewal, after
the first renewal, she had no right.
of her application for assignment isquite legal.
view takenby theHigh Court iscorrect. The lands absolutely belonged to the
Government and they were assigned to Khansahib Naban Ali. The assigneehas a
right only for one renewal, Admittedly, the lease was made in May 1922.
the expiry of 30 yearsin 1952, further renewal for another30 years having been rejected,she
hadno right for assignment. The rejection of the application for renewal of
grant is clearly intra vires.
stated that the appellant does not have any house to accommodatelarge family.
In thatview, we direct the respondents to consider grant ofsuitable land for
construction ofthe house.
accordingly disposedof. No costs.