1966 (10) TMI 160 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of the Government Grants Act 1895 to Rajasthan.
2. Interpretation of Section 2 of the Government Grants Act regarding a sale-deed.
3. Comparison of relevant case laws on the exemption from registration under the Transfer of Property Act for government grants.

Analysis:
The High Court of Rajasthan, in a revision application, addressed the issue of the applicability of the Government Grants Act 1895 to Rajasthan. The defendants argued that the Act was no longer applicable to Rajasthan, citing changes made under the Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order 1956. However, the court found that the Act continued to be applicable to Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Adaptation of Central Laws Ordinance 1950 and Article 372 of the Constitution, which extended the Act without any intention of repeal. Thus, the court held that the Government Grants Act 1895 remained in force in Rajasthan.

Regarding the interpretation of Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, the defendants contended that it did not apply to a commercial transaction like the sale-deed in question. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that Section 2 applies to every transfer of land or interest therein, without making a distinction between commercial and non-commercial transactions. The court emphasized that the Act covers all transfers of land, irrespective of the nature of the transaction.

The court examined relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the Act. It distinguished the decision in Munshi Lal v. Gopi Ballabh, where the Allahabad High Court held that a lease executed on behalf of the government was not exempt from registration under the Transfer of Property Act. The court disagreed with this decision, noting that Section 2 of the Crown Grants Act applied to transfers of land made by or on behalf of the Crown. Additionally, the court found the decision in Akram Mea v. Municipal Corporation Secunderabad irrelevant to the case at hand, as it was based on the lease not being executed by or on behalf of the government.

Ultimately, the court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiff and dismissing the revision application. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the matter.