http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. RATAN KAUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:       Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy       Hon’ble Mr. Justice d.P. Wadhwa Om Prakash  Dubey, R.D. Upadhyay and Subrata Das, Advs. for the appellant M.S. Usgaocar,additional Solicitor  General, Dhruv  Mehta, D.S. Mehra, Advs. with him for the Respondents      The following order of thecourt was delivered:  O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Originallythe  land of  an extentof 68 acres, 7 Kanal and 11marlas situated in Andaman  & NicobarIslands was assigned on May1, 1922to Khansahib Naban Ali for 30 years. After his demise in 1947, his widow Smt. Noorjahan Begum had transferred the land in  the name  of father-in-law  of the appellant in  the year1949-50. Mutation was effected by an officerin  thename  of appellant  after the  demise of her father-in-law. She filed an applicationfor assignment.That was rejected.  On a  writ petition  filed in the High Court, the learned  single Judge  directed grant  of assignment. IN writ Appeal  No. 2490/93,  by judgmentand order datedJuly 25,1995,   the Division Bench of  the Calcutta High  Court allowedthe  writ appeal  and held thatshe hadno right for second renewal after the expiryof 30 years. Since under the covenant, the  predecessor-in-interest was  entitled toonly one renewal,  after the first renewal, she had  no  right. Rejection of  her application for assignment isquite legal. The view  takenby  theHigh  Court iscorrect.  The  lands absolutely belonged to the Government and they were assigned to Khansahib  Naban Ali.  The assigneehas a right only for one renewal,  Admittedly, the  lease was  made in  May 1922. After the  expiry of  30 yearsin 1952, further renewal for another30  years having been rejected,she hadno right for assignment. The rejection of the application for renewal of grant is clearly intra vires.      Itis stated that the appellant does not have any house to accommodatelarge family.  In thatview, we  direct the respondents  to  consider  grant   ofsuitable   land for construction ofthe house.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    The appealis accordingly disposedof. No costs.