UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusHARISH CHAND ANAND

                    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                  A
                                    v.
                      HARISH CHAND ANAND

                             JULY 26, 1995

         [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)                            B

      Government Grant Act, 1895: Section 3.

     Govemment Land-Grant of-Convenant-Resumption of Land- ·
Conditions Precedent for-Held issue of one month's notice as provided in C
convenant is a condition precedent-Determination of compensation and
payment thereof held not a condition precedent for resumption of land.

       The respondent was granted a licence under Section 3 of the Govern-
ment Grant Act, 1895 to erect structure on the Government land. Clause
I of the Grant empowered the Government to resume the land at any time D
on giving one month's notice and payment of value of such building as may
have been authorised. On the question of power of the Government to
resume the land a Division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that
it was a condition precedent that the Government should give notice to the
respondent, determine the compensation and then resume the property E
granted. State preferred on appeal to this Court.

     Allowing the appeal, this Court.

       HELD : 1. The High Court was not right in its conclusion that it is
a condition precedent to determine the amount of the value of the building   F
in the first instance and payment thereof before resumption of the proper-
ty. [350-F]

       2. The Standing Order No. 241 though does not contemplate of
issuing prior notice to erstwhile licencee whose licence has been deter· G
mined under Clause I of the Grant, before determination of the actual
amount, the erstwhile grantee is entitled to a notice, so that the grantee
would be at liberty to place before the competent authority all relevant
material for determining the value of the building and for payment of the
amount thereof. Thus it is not a condition precedent to determine, at the
first instance, the compensation after giving an opportunity make payment H
                                   347
    348                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A thereof and then to resume the property. What is a con.dition precedent is
    issuance of one month's notice and on expiry thereof the Government is
    entitled to resume the land. The amount is to be determined as required
    under the relevant provisions after giving opportunity and which could be
    done thereafter. (350-B-D]
B           Sh. Raj Singh v. Union of India, AIR (1973) Delhi 169, approved.

          Bhagwati Devi v. President of India, (1974) 72 Allahabad Law Journal
    43, disapproved.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1868 of
c   1979.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 12.3.76 of the Allahabad High
    Court in S.A. No. 36 of 1976.

            P.P. Malhotra, Y.P. Mahajan, and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants.
D
            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         This is an appeal by Certificate granted by the High Court by order
    dated December 14, 1978 with a question as under:
E                "Whether the only right of the grantee is to claim compensation
              and whether the Government can take possession at any time after
              expiry of one month in view of Governor General's Order No. 179
              dated 12th September, 1836?"

F          In view of the Certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
    133(1) of the Constitution, the question arises whether the State is entitled
    to resume land granted under s.3 of Government Grant Act, 1895 without
    prior. determination of the amount for the structure. Though the respon-
    dent has been served, he has not appeared, either in person or through
    counsel. We have taken the assistance of counsel for the appellant and we
G   have perused the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in Sh. Raj
    Singh v. Union of India, AIR (1973) Delhi 169, and the Division Bench
    judgment of the High Court of Allahabad reported in Bhagwati Devi v.
    President of India, (1974) 72 Allahabad Law Journal 43, which was relied
    on and followed by the Division Bench in this case to hold that it is a
H    condition precedent that the State should give notice to the respondent,
                          U.0.1. v. H.C.ANAND                            349

determine the compensation and then resume the property granted to the A
respondent. The question, therefore, is whether it is a condition precedent
for the Government to resume the land only after determination of the
compensation and payment thereof or on the issuance of the notice as
required under the Grant and on expiry thereof. To appreciate the con-
tention, it is necessary to look to the provisions of the Grant itself. Under B
s.3 of the Act the Governor General in Council exercised the power and
granted licence to the respondent to erect the structure on the Govern-
ment land. The conditions of the Grant are :

           "No ground will be granted except on the following conditions,
        which are to be subscribed by every grantee as well as by those to      c
        whom his grant may subsequently be transferred:-

           1st: The Government to retain the power of resumption at any
        time on giving one month's notice and payment of the value of
        such buildings as may have been authorised to be erected."
                                                                                D
     · The other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Hence
they are omitted.

       In the Order No. 179 of 1836, the Governor General in Council had
issued the regulation empowering the Governor General to rescind                E
authorised orders in force till then and to substitute for them by regula-
tions. The regulations in order No. 179 of 1836 are statutory regulations
made by the Governor General in Council in exercise of his statutory
power. The convenants for the Grant clearly empower the Government
retaining its power of resumption at any time. The conditions precedent
are : to issue one month's notice and payment of the value of such building     F
as may have been authorised to be erected.

      The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has left open the
question 9f mode of determQiation of the value of the building to be
determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law. The           G
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwati Devi's case,
(supra) in paragraph 7, had held that though the Government is entitled
to resume the land, the grantee is entitled to a prior opportunity to
represent his case before the competent authority in determination of the
value of the building and for payment of the value of such building resumed
by the State.                                                                   H
    350                   SUPRbME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         It would appear that detailed instructions in that behalf were made
  in the Standing Order No. 241 which was produced before the Division
  Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in which Military Engineer was
  instructed to evaluate the value of the building which was resumed by the
  Government for payment of the amount to the erstwhile licencee. We are
  not concerned in this appeal as to the. method of valuation. Suffice it to
B state that the Order No. 241 though does not contemplate of issuing prior
  notice to erstwhile licencee whose licence has been determined under
  Clause 1 of the Grant, before determination of the actual amount, the
  erstwhile grantee is entitled to a notice, so that the grantee would be at
  liberty to place before the competent authority all relevant material for
C determining the value of the building and for payment of the amount
  thereof. It is seen that it is not a condition precedent to determine, at the
  first instance, the compensation after giving an opportunity; make payment
  thereof and then to resume the property. What is a condition precedent is
  issuance of one month's notice and on expiry thereof the Government is
D entitled to resume the land. The amount is to be determined as required
  under the relevant provisions after giving opportunity and which could. be
  done thereafter. After all, the property would be resumed for public use
  and determination of value of the building errected is a ministerial act and
  payment thereof is the resultant consequence. This process would take
  some time and if the reasoning. of the High Court of Allahabad is given
E effect to, it would defeat the public purpose. The view of the Delhi High
  Court is consistent with the scheme and appears to be pragmatic and
  realistic. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its conclusion that it
  is a condition precedent to determine the amount of the value of the
  building in the first instance and payment thereof before resumption of the
F property.
          The appeal is accordingly allowed, but since the respondent is not
    present, without costs.                                                       .   .
    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal allowed.