Case Note & Summary
The appellants, joint owners of Bungalow No. 45 in Kanpur Cantonment, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the military authorities to execute a lease under Rule 27 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 for regularisation of their occupancy land held on old grant terms. The property was recorded as occupancy land on old grant terms, and the appellants had acquired it through sale deeds in 1958. After mutation in 1961, they applied for regularisation of their possession under Rule 27, but the Defence Ministry refused to grant a lease under Rule 27 and Schedule VII, instead offering to consider their case under Rule 28(1) and Schedule VIII. The appellants filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction for lease under Rule 27. A single Judge directed the respondents to grant the lease, rejecting the respondents' plea that Rules 16-26 and 28 applied. On appeal, the Division Bench agreed that those rules were inapplicable but held that Rule 27 did not mandate a lease in all cases; it vested discretion in the authorities and gave no absolute right to the appellants. The Division Bench set aside the single Judge's direction and ordered the respondents to reconsider the request in accordance with law. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate under Article 133(1)(b) of the Constitution. The only question for consideration was whether the appellants were entitled to a direction for issuance of a lease under Rule 27. The Supreme Court examined Rule 27, which stated that the Military Estates Officer 'may' grant a lease with the approval of the Central Government or other appointed authority. The Court held that the use of 'may' clearly conferred discretion, and the requirement of approval by another authority reinforced the discretionary nature of the power. The Court distinguished Sardar Govindrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, noting that the High Court's direction for reconsideration was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench's order and directed that the appellants' application be decided afresh, keeping in view that the power to grant a lease under Rule 27 was discretionary, but refusal should only be in suitable cases with sufficient reasons.
Headnote
A) Cantonment Land Administration - Lease Regularisation of Old Grants - Discretionary Power under Rule 27 - Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, Rule 27 and Schedule VII - The Military Estates Officer's power to grant a lease for regularisation of old grants was discretionary, as indicated by the word 'may' and the requirement of approval by the Central Government or other appointed authority; the officer was not bound to grant a lease in every case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction for reconsideration of the appellants' application in accordance with law, holding that the power must be exercised on a case-by-case basis and refusal should occur only in suitable cases with sufficient reasons (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were entitled to a direction against the respondents to issue a lease to them under Rule 27 and Schedule VII of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, and whether Rule 27 conferred a mandatory or discretionary power.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that Rule 27 conferred a discretionary power on the Military Estates Officer, subject to the approval of the Central Government or other appointed authority. The Court affirmed the Division Bench's direction that the respondents reconsider the appellants' application for a lease under Rule 27 and Schedule VII in accordance with law, deciding it afresh with the understanding that refusal should only be in suitable cases with sufficient reasons.
Law Points
- Power to grant lease under Rule 27 is discretionary
- use of 'may' confers discretion
- approval of Central Government reinforces discretionary nature
- no absolute right to lease for old grant holders
- refusal must be based on sufficient reasons
