Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.39 seconds)The Government Grants Act, 1895
Section 2 in The Government Grants Act, 1895 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Government Grants Act, 1895 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. & Ors vs United Bank Of India on 26 November, 2015
19. Respondents- 2 to 5 have filed a counter affidavit wherein execution of lease deed with effect from 01.07.1902 in favour of Sri Sahai son of Sheo Din in respect of disputed Nazul land is not disputed. It is said that lease came to an end on 30.06.1932. There was no attempt made by lessee to get it renewed. In terms of lease deed, lessee and his Executors, Administrators or Assignees liable to hand over land to State and now, in public interest, land in dispute is required by State for constructing residences for weaker sections under "Pradhan Mantri Avas Yojana" which is to be developed by ADA. Mortgage of land by Jokhu, over which he himself had no title and its further transfer without consent of owner is void ab initio and would not confer any right upon such transferee. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. and Others Vs. United Bank of India and Others 2016 (2) SCC 757. Petitioner had no right over property in dispute as petitioner is not a lessee, and all subsequent transactions from the stage of mortgage by Jokhu are wholly unauthorized, illegal and nullity.
Azim Ahmad Kazmi And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 16 July, 2012
78. Superiority of the stipulations of Grant to deal the relations between Grantor and Grantee has been reinforced in Azim Ahmad Kazmi and others (Supra). Therein dispute related to Plot No. 59, Civil Station, Allahabad, area 1 acre and 4272 sq. yard, i.e., 9112 sq. yard or 7618 sq. meter. Initially a lease deed was executed on 11.01.1868 by Secretary of State for India in Council, in favour of one, Thomas Crowby, for a period of 50 years and it was signed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division on behalf of Secretary of State for India in Council. After expiry of lease, a fresh lease was executed for another period of 50 years on 12.04.1923 w.e.f. 01.01.1918. Lease holder with permission of Collector, Allahabad transferred lease rights to Purshottam Das in 1945. The legal heirs of Sri Purshottam Das, on 31.10.1958, transferred leasehold rights in favour of Smt. Shakira Khatoon Kazmi, Smt. Sabira Khatoon Kazmi and Smt. Maimoona Khatoon Kazmi. After the death of Smt. Maimoona Khatoon Kazmi, her legal heirs, namely, Azim Ahmad Kazmi, Omar Ahmad Kazmi, Shamim Ahmad Kazmi, Alim Ahmad Kazmi and Maaz Ahmad Kazmi also claimed lease rights by succession. Lease granted on 12.04.1923 w.e.f. 01.01.1918 expired on 31.12.1967. It was renewed on 19.03.1996 for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 01.01.1968 which period expired on 31.12.1997. Again on 17.07.1998 it was renewed for a further period of 30 years w.e.f. 01.01.1998. While lease was continuing, vide Government Order dated 15.12.2000, right of resumption was exercised by State Government. It directed resumption of possession of plot in question and lease deed was cancelled. District Magistrate, Allahabad served a notice dated 11.01.2001 to lease holders intimating them that State Government's order dated 15.12.2000 has cancelled lease and resumed possession of land in question, as the same was required for public purpose. Notice also directed lease holders to remove structures standing on plot, failing which possession would be taken in accordance with Clause 3(c) of lease deed. Lease holders filed objections against notice to District Magistrate and also stated that they have sent representation/ objection to Chief Minister praying for revocation of Government Order dated 15.12.2000. District Magistrate passed order on 24.08.2001 rejecting objection of lease holders and sent a cheque of Rs. 10 lacs representing compensation for the building standing over plot. State authorities claimed that they took possession of open land on 01.09.2001.
State Of U.P vs Zahoor Ahmad & Anr on 8 August, 1973
In the case of The State of U.P. vs. Zahoor Ahmad and Another, 1973(2) SCC 547, this Court held that the Section 3 of the Act declares the unfettered discretion of the Government to impose such conditions and limitation as it thinks fit, no matter what the general law of land be. From Clause 3(C) of the deed, it is clear that the State of U.P. while granting lease made it clear that if the demised premises are at any time required by the lessor for his or for any public purpose, he shall have the right to give one month's clear notice to the lessee to remove any building standing at the time of the demised property and within two months' of the receipt of the notice to take possession thereof on the expiry of that period subject to the condition that the lessor is willing to purchase the property on the demised premises, the lessee shall be paid for such amount as may be determined by the Secretary to the Government of U.P. in the Nagar Awas Department."