Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SMT. RATAN KAUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
2 May 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 48 · 1997 INSC 470
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

p. 48, margin F

Originally the land of an extent of 68 acres, 7 kanal and 11 marlas situated in Andaman & Nicobar Islands was assigned on May 1, 1922 to 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 year 1949-50. Mutation was effected by an officer in the name of appellant after the demise of her father-in-law. She filed an application for assignment. That was rejected. On a writ petition filed in the High Court, the learned single Judgment directed grant of assignment. In Writ Appeal No. 2490/93, by judgment and order dated July 25, 1995, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ appeal and held that she had no right for second renewal after the expiry of 30 years. Since under the covenant, the predecessor-in-interest was entitled to only one renewal, after the first renewal, she had no· right. Rejection of her application for assignment is quite legal. The view taken by the High Court is correct. The lands absolutely belongt:d to the Government and they were assigned to Khansahib Naban Ali. The assignee has a right only for one renewal. Admittedly, the lease was made in May 1922. After the expiry of 30 years in 1952, further renewal for another 30 years having been rejected, she had no right for assignment. The rejection of the application for renewal of grant is clearly intra vires.

pp. 48–49, margin F

It is stated that the appellant does not have any house to accommodate large family. In that viev:, we direct the respondents to consider grant of suitable land for construction of the house.

p. 49, margin C

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P . Appeal disposed of.

p. 49, margin C