PROPERTY LAW

CASE COMMENT-

UNION OF INDIA & ANR VS DINSHAW SHAPOORJI

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Prof. MITIKE SRIVASTAVA PRAKASH SHAW

SIGNATURE: SIGNATURE:

DATE: 23-09-2020 DATE: 23-09-2020

5TH SEM, 3RD YEAR

B.A. LLB. (HONS.)

CMRU SOLS.

INTRODUCTION:
 UNION OF INDIA & ANR VS DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS ON 6 MAY, 2014

The case “Union of India & Anr VS Dinshaw Shapoorji Anklesari & Ors” deals mainly with
Section 2 and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882(TPA). This case also involves
few different areas of law such as The General Land Register and The Government Grants
Act, 1895(GGA), however the main analysis of the case is decided and delivered on the
aspect of Sec 2 And Sec 3 of the TPA and the GGA.

The facts of the case show that there was a grant made by the government to a person which
was later bequeathed by his son. The dispute began when the son tried to sell the property and
transfer the title to someone else. The major dispute being that the whole act was not valid
and that the property and its title still belongs to the government.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

 The dispute is related to a piece of property situated in Pune, where the plot was
provided to Mr N S Anklesari by the order of the Governor General to erect a house
within the fortress.
 Also an agreement was entered by both the parties stating a consideration of monthly
payment of Rs. 196/- payable on the first of every month.
 The said land was leased by way of grant originally to N S Anklesari. The super
structure on this land was constructed by him only.
 In the year 1891, the super structure was bequeathed to his son M N Anklesari.
 Subsequently, M N Anklesari and two others(plaintiffs) and Dinshaw S Anklesari and
two others(respondents) entered into an agreement to sell and purchase the lease-hold
rights being perpetual grant under the old grant with full rights of ownership of the
building for total consideration of Rs. 60.000/-. M N Anklesari and two others sold
their rights, title and interest over the super structure that is in favour of Dinshaw S
Anklesari and two others (nephews of M N Anklesari).
 Thereby the file of the super structure was transferred in favour of Dinshaw S
Anklesari and two others but the title of the land remained with the appellant (Union
of India).

ISSUE RAISED:

 Since the title of the property remained with the Union of India, can Dinshaw and two
others resume their rights over the property?
 Whether the claim made by the Union of India under the GGA is applicable?
 Whether providing compensation the best remedy available?

JUDGMENT:

It was held that the government has discretion and under Sec 3 of the TPA, it can impose any
condition, limitation or restriction in its grants and the rights, privileges and obligations of the
grantee would be regulated only according to the terms of the grant itself though they may be
inconsistent with the provisions of any Statute or Common law.

BACKGROUND:

2
 UNION OF INDIA & ANR VS DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS ON 6 MAY, 2014

To decide the judgment of the case, the court referred to these cases;

 Phiroze Temulji Anklesari vs. H. C. Vashistha & Others, AIR 1980 Bom.
 Azim Ahmad Kazmi & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2012, 7 SCC
278

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:

In the case, the appellant- Union of India, according to the terms of old grant send a notice of
resumption to respondents intimating the intention to resume the suit premises and also
informed that the appellants are ready to pay a compensation of Rs.31,537/- as the value of
the authorized erection made on the said land.
The respondents then filed for a special civil suit against this resumption notice to be set aside
which was observed in the case Phiroze Temulji Anklesari vs. H. C. Vashistha & others, AIR
1980 Bom. The High Court held that there is no evidence whatsoever of the Government’s
right to resume the land in possession and the terms under which right of such resumption, if
any, could be exercised. It further held that most importantly there is no evidence of the right
or power of Government to acquire the structure standing on the land in question by
arbitrarily or unilaterally determining compensation. On the basis of these judgments passed
by the High Court Writ Petition were filed by the respondents in the special civil application,
being aggrieved by these judgments of High Court and the appellant Union of India filing a
SLP.
The land was allotted by way of grant to one N S Anklesari who erected super structure and
later was bequeathed to M N Anklesari his son. The name of M N Anklesari was registered in
the General Land Register. This is also justified from the agreement and repairing lease
between M N Anklesari and the Governor General in Council where the clause is mentioned
as follow: “(4) Nothing herein shall prejudice the right of the party of the second part to
resume under the terms of the Cantonment tenure above referred to; and (5) In the event of
any dispute arising between the party of the first part and the party of the second part as
regards the interpretation of any terms or condition herein contained, the same shall be
referred to C.R.E. Pune Area whose decision will be final.”
Also the consent letter written by M N Anklesari to the Military Estates Officer, Pune
Cantonment, and Pune shows that permission for sale of property. Hence from the records, it
is clear that the land measuring 0.90 acres bearing General Land Register Survey No.258
situated at Elphinstone Road, Pune Cantonment, and Pune belongs to the appellant. Learned
Solicitor General of India, Mr. Mohan Parasaran appearing on behalf of the appellants-Union
of India made the following submissions:-
 (i)As per Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, Transfer of Property Act,
1882 is not applicable to such Government grant lands and the Government Grant is
taken effect as if the said Act had not been passed. The Government Grants Act, 1895
as would be evident from the preamble and Section 2 therein, seeks to clarify the
doubts with regard to the extended operation of the Transfer of Property Act. Section
2 of the Act reads as follows: “2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not to apply to
Government grants.-Nothing in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contained shall
apply or be deemed ever to have applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of
any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made by or on behalf of the
Government to, or in favour of, any person whosoever; but every such grant and
transfer shall be construed and take effect as if the said Act had not been passed.”

3
 UNION OF INDIA & ANR VS DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS ON 6 MAY, 2014

 (ii)Not only the Transfer of Property Act is made inapplicable to the Government but
Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 makes it clear that the Government
grants is to take effect according to their tenor, notwithstanding any rule of law,
Statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary to the same.
Section 3 lays down as follows: - “3. Government grants to take effect according to their
tenor.- All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations over contained in any such
grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and the effect according to their tenor, any rule of
law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The Court in Azim Ahmad Kazmi & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2012, 7
SCC 278 has held that the Government grant of lease of land is governed entirely by the
terms of the grant. The Court took note of Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895
which is to take effect according to its tenor notwithstanding any other law to the contrary.

CONCLUSION:

It can be concluded that from the permission letter it is clear that the grant can be resumed if
it is used for any purpose other than for which it was originally granted. Therefore the land of
the suit premises (under dispute) belongs to the Union of India- appellants herein. Therefore,
they cannot be held to be tenants of the suit premises, the plaintiffs-respondents have only
right with regard to the structure built on the suit premises. The issue of the case was not
introspected by the Trial court and the Appellant court and the High Court also failed to take
into consideration the appellant’s right under Section 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act,
1895. After introspecting all issues the appeal was allowed.

......................................................................................................................................................