TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (3) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms" referred to rants made by the Government under the General Order of the Governor-General in Council dated 12th September, 1836. Subsequently, the first Act to be passed in respect of these lands was the Cantonments Act No. 13 of 1889. This was followed by Cantonments Act No. 15 of 1910 and Cantonments Code, .1912. These were amended by Cantonments Act No. 2 of 1924 which still continues to be in force. On the 26th June, 1925, Rules were framed for the first time under section 280 of the Cantonments Act of 1924, regulating administration of Cantonment lands. These Rules were, however, superseded by fresh Rules by Government notification dated 23rd November, 1937. The new Rules are described as "Cantonment Land Administratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry Estates Officer, Lucknow for the same, purpose and, according to the appellants. no attention was paid lo this request of theirs. On 15th 'October, 1966, they sent a reminder to the Military Estates Officer, Lucknow and, in addition, requested him to supply them with a form prescribed by Schedule V of the Rules of 1937. It may be mentioned that the lease under r. 27 was required to be executed in the form in Schedule VII and not in Schedule V. On 25th October, 1966, the Military Estates Officer wrote to the appellants to collect the form from, the Cantonment Executive Officer, Kanpur Cantonment, who was the Agent of the Military Estates Officer and to submit it, after completion, to the Military Estates Officer, Lucknow, along with a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 to 26 and 28 and not under Rule 27. The respondents appealed to a Division Bench which agreed with the learned single Judge that rules 16-26 and 28 were inapplicable to the case of the appellants. It was, however, of the view that, though, the case was covered by r. 27, that rule did not contain any mandatory provision requiring a lease to be given in all cases of old grants and that there was a discretion vested in the authorities acting under that rule not to give a lease in suitable cases. It was also held that the appellants had no right to claim such a lease under that rule. Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the direction of the single Judge and issued orders to the respondents to reconsider the request of the appellants fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view of this language used, we think that the High Court was quite fight in holding that this rule does not envisage a mandatory direction to the Military Estates Officer to grant a lease in all cases where the question of regularisation of old grants arises. Normally, the, word "may" is used to grant a discretion and not to indicate a mandatory direction. Had the, intention been that the Military Estates Officer must grant a lease in all cases, the word used would have been "shall" instead of "may". It is true that the word "may", in some context, has been interpreted as containing a mandatory direction and the authority given the power has to exercise that power unless there be special reasons. Such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scretion to Government and the word "may" in that sub-section bears its ordinary meaning. The word "may" in sub-s. (3) has, however, a different purport. Under that sub-section, Government must, if it is satisfied that an institution or service must be continued or that there is a descendant of a former ruling chief, grant money or pension to the institution or service or to, the descendant of the former ruling chief, as the case may be. of course, it need not make a grant if the person claiming is not a descendant of a former ruling chief or there is other reasonable ground not to grant money or pension.. But, except in those cases where there are good grounds for not granting the pension, Government is bound to make a ....