TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the State could resume trust property for a public project by invoking the Government Grants Act without first obtaining the appropriate order from the court controlling the trust and the Official Trustee. (ii) Whether the impugned resumption and eviction action complied with Article 300-A and the rule of law.
Issue (i): Whether the State could resume trust property for a public project by invoking the Government Grants Act without first obtaining the appropriate order from the court controlling the trust and the Official Trustee.
Analysis: The land had been placed under a trust administered through the Official Trustee under a scheme decree, and the statutory framework under the Official Trustees Act required court supervision for vesting, transfer and control of trust property. The Government Grants Act preserves the terms of government grants, but that power could not be used to bypass the judicially controlled scheme governing the property. Since the State did not obtain an order from the competent scheme court or the Official Trustee court before resumption, the executive action travelled beyond the proper legal procedure.
Conclusion: The resumption could not validly be effected unilaterally in the manner adopted, and this issue is answered against the State and in favour of the appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned resumption and eviction action complied with Article 300-A and the rule of law.
Analysis: Deprivation of property under Article 300-A must be by authority of law and through a procedure that is just, fair and reasonable. The Court held that even though the land was required for a public project, the executive could not ignore the binding legal procedure governing the trust property. The action therefore offended the rule of law, because the State acted without following the legally required process for divesting the property from the trust administration.
Conclusion: The impugned action was not in accordance with Article 300-A and the rule of law, and this issue is answered in favour of the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, but the controlling reasoning is that the State could not bypass the statutory and judicial mechanism governing the trust property while asserting a power of resumption for public purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: Government grants may operate according to their tenor, but where the property is under a trust controlled by a scheme decree and the Official Trustee Act requires court-supervised control and transfer, executive resumption cannot lawfully proceed without following that judicial process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
