Government grant terms govern cantonment land, allowing resumption where the grant reserves that right.

Land in a cantonment held on old grant terms is governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, so the grant operates according to its own tenor and the Union may resume the land where the grant reserves that right. The respondents could not rely on ordinary landlord-tenant or ownership concepts to resist resumption, because the grant documents and admission certificate showed that only limited rights in the superstructure were accepted and the land remained subject to the Government's resumption power. Ordinary property law could not override the special regime governing Government grants; the Union's resumption claim therefore prevailed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether land held on old grant terms in a cantonment is governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895 so that the grant takes effect according to its tenor and the Union of India can resume the land in accordance with the grant conditions. (ii) Whether the respondents could assert landlord-tenant rights in respect of the suit premises and resist the Union's claim for resumption and possession.

Issue (i): Whether land held on old grant terms in a cantonment is governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895 so that the grant takes effect according to its tenor and the Union of India can resume the land in accordance with the grant conditions.

Analysis: The land was shown in the General Land Register and the admission certificate as held on old grant terms. The repair lease, the permission letters and the admission certificate all preserved the Government's right to resume. Under Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1895, the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to Government grants, and under Section 3, the grant operates according to its own terms notwithstanding any contrary rule of law or statute. The Court relied on the settled position that old grant lands in cantonments are regulated by the grant conditions and that the Union may resume such land when the grant so permits.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the Appellant. The Government grant governed the property, and the Union had the right of resumption under the grant terms.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents could assert landlord-tenant rights in respect of the suit premises and resist the Union's claim for resumption and possession.

Analysis: Since the land itself belonged to the Union and was held on old grant terms, the respondents could claim rights only in relation to the superstructure and not ownership of the land. Their claim that they were freehold owners and that the Union had no power to resume was inconsistent with the grant documents and the conditions accepted by them. The suit and the concurrent findings below proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the parties' rights under the grant, and the protections available under ordinary tenancy law could not override the special regime governing Government grants.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the Appellant. The respondents could not defeat the Union's resumption right by asserting landlord-tenant or ownership claims over the suit premises.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgments were set aside and the suit was dismissed, leaving the Union's right under the old grant intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A Government grant of cantonment land must be construed strictly by its own terms, and where the grant preserves a right of resumption, ordinary property law and tenancy concepts cannot displace that contractual and statutory regime.

---