Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)The Government Grants Act, 1895
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 2 in The Government Grants Act, 1895 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kanpur vs Kamla Town Trust on 16 November, 1995
24. In the agreement with respect to grant dated 08.09.1915 (annexure-10) it had been clearly provided vide Clause 2 thereof that the Secretary of State reserved the whole and entire proprietary right in the said piece of land subject only to the right of use thereof by the public as a park, whereas Clause 3 of the said document shows that the said piece of land shall be liable to be resumed by the Secretary of State if used for other than the specified purpose or purposes for which it is granted. In the said circumstances, any change could have been made or any right could have been transferred to any other committee or trust only by the owner of the property and not by any one else. Considering the said aspect of the matter, some of the original subscribers along with representatives of some of the deceased subscribers held a meeting and prepared a trust deed dated 17.11.1934 (annexure-3) in which purpose of the trust was mentioned to carry out the objects comprised in the scheme of the grant and for that purpose balance amount of securities of the earlier committee was made over to the trustees to hold the properties of the Hardinge Park only for receiving income, making expenditure and investment, for opening and operating Bank Account as well as Promissory Notes, certificates, bonds, securities, for paying salaries, remuneration, expenses, taxes etc, for purchasing/selling plants, for erecting demolishing, modifying or repairing buildings or structures of the park and for receiving, collecting and investing subscriptions and donations and contributions. These functions have been clearly mentioned in various clauses, namely 1 to 11 of the resolution in the trust deed. It is thus clear Page 0037 that in the aforesaid circumstances the land of Hardinge Park or its properties, movable or immovable, never vested in the trustees of the said deed of trust nor could it have legally vested in them as the author of the said trust deed was neither the owner nor the proprietor of the property, which admittedly was the State Government, rather the authors of the said trust deed were not the settlors/owners but were only subscribers of the fund and the trustees, who had no right, title or interest in the lands reserved for public park by the State government vide its grant, nor were they legally entitled to create or conter any such right or interest either on themselves or on others with respect to the said lands. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that there have to be two main parties in a trust deed, namely the settlor who has to be the owner and the trustees, whereas the beneficiaries would indirectly be a third party to the instrument. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur v. Kamla Town Trust as well as to a decision of the Hon'ble Privy Council in case of Chambers v. Chambers and Ors. reported in AIR (31) 1944 Privy Council 78 and also to a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in case of Kamurudeen Sahib and Ors. v. Noor Mahomed Usman Sahib and Ors. reported in AIR 1916 Madras 657(3).
Bishan Das And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 19 April, 1961
In view of the aforesaid legal position, the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, i.e. the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bishan Das and others (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as it was not with respect to any government grant. Hence, in the instant case, Section 3 of the Government Grants Act would prevail and the State would not be bound by the provisions of any other Act in case of such grant.
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Chairman, Ramappa Gundappa Sahakari ... vs State Of Mysore And Ors. on 5 April, 1974
Inept acts and handling by the authorities of the State cannot by statutory operation transform an ephemeral permission to do something into a permanent estate by petitioner in it. In that regard, reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chairman Ramappa Gudappa Sahakari Samyakta Besava Sangh Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Mysore and Ors. .
The Collector Of Bombay vs Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri & Others on 28 February, 1955
19. The aforesaid matter had been considered by the Privy Council as well as the Supreme Court and several High Courts of our country, such as in case of Jagannath Page 0035 Baksh Singh v. United Provinces reported in AIR 1946 PC 127, in case of Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji reported in 1955 Supreme Court 298, in case of A. Subhan v. Union of India and in case of State of Madras represented by the Collector of Madras and Ors. v. T.M. Oosman Haji and Co. Madras and Ors. , in which it was held that general words used in Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 cannot be read in their apparent generality as the whole Act was intended to settle doubts which had arisen as to the effect of the other Acts on government grants. It was further held that a legislature can by express words or by necessary implication take away the effect of Section 3 of the Government Grants Act while enacting a particular legislation but unless such legislation is specifically made no enactment can be invoked contrary to the terms of the government grants. It was also held that it was open to the State to put forward successfully the contention that the express stipulations had been made in the terms of the grant, such as that the lessee should surrender possession or the possession is resumed by the Government, can take effect, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act.
A. K. Subraman & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 December, 1974
19. The aforesaid matter had been considered by the Privy Council as well as the Supreme Court and several High Courts of our country, such as in case of Jagannath Page 0035 Baksh Singh v. United Provinces reported in AIR 1946 PC 127, in case of Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji reported in 1955 Supreme Court 298, in case of A. Subhan v. Union of India and in case of State of Madras represented by the Collector of Madras and Ors. v. T.M. Oosman Haji and Co. Madras and Ors. , in which it was held that general words used in Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 cannot be read in their apparent generality as the whole Act was intended to settle doubts which had arisen as to the effect of the other Acts on government grants. It was further held that a legislature can by express words or by necessary implication take away the effect of Section 3 of the Government Grants Act while enacting a particular legislation but unless such legislation is specifically made no enactment can be invoked contrary to the terms of the government grants. It was also held that it was open to the State to put forward successfully the contention that the express stipulations had been made in the terms of the grant, such as that the lessee should surrender possession or the possession is resumed by the Government, can take effect, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act.