9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 27 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 regarding the grant of lease for regularisation of old grants. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of the appellants to a direction for the issuance of a lease under Rule 27 and Schedule VII of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937. The appellants, joint owners of a bungalow in Kanpur Cantonment, sought to regularize their possession under Rule 27. The appellants lacked documentation regarding the original title of the property but had acquired rights through a sale-deed in 1958. They faced objections from authorities and were required to agree to terms dating back to 1936 for mutation of their names. Despite multiple requests and representations, the authorities did not grant them a lease under Rule 27 and Schedule VII. The High Court directed the respondents to grant a lease, which was appealed by the respondents to a Division Bench. The Division Bench held that while the case fell under Rule 27, there was no mandatory provision for the grant of a lease, and authorities had discretion in suitable cases. The Supreme Court focused on the interpretation of the word "may" in Rule 27, emphasizing that it grants discretionary power to the Military Estates Officer, subject to approval by the Central Government. The Court cited precedents to explain that the word "may" generally indicates discretion, and the requirement for approval implies the possibility of disapproval. Therefore, the power under Rule 27 is discretionary, and authorities can decide not to proceed under the rule in suitable cases. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing that the refusal to grant a lease should only occur in cases with sufficient reasons. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified that Rule 27 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 grants discretionary power to the Military Estates Officer, with approval from the Central Government, for the grant of leases to regularize old grants. The Court emphasized that the word "may" denotes discretion, and the requirement for approval implies the exercise of discretion by the authorities. The appellants were not entitled to a mandatory direction for a lease under Rule 27, and the authorities had the discretion to decide on granting leases based on suitable reasons. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
