ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J.—The petitioner in this case is the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Jabalpur Corporation. He prays that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing an order of the State Government dated the 29th February 1956 granting certain Nazul land situated in Jabalpur free of premium to the opponent Hitkarini Sabha, Jabalpur. The land was specified in the memorandum which the Government issued on 29th February 1956 about the grant of land. 2. The petitioner's case is that the land in question is a part of the land which once belonged to the Government of India in 1930 and which was transferred to the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur by the Government of the Central Province u/s 38 (1) (f) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, with the previous sanction of the Government of India; that under the terms of transfer the land could be used only for the purpose of a garden and for no other purpose without the previous sanction of the Government and it could be resumed by the Government only if this condition of user were to be broken; that the land was accordingly used by the then Municipal Committee of Jabalpur; that this property of the City Municipality Jabalpur, vested in the Jabalpur Corporation u/s 71 of the City of Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1948; and that the land in question could not, therefore, be transferred by the State Government either under the terms of the grant of 1930 or u/s 81 of the City of Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1948, which had no applicability. 3. In our judgment, this petition, must be rejected. There is no dispute that the land in question formed a part of the land transferred to the Municipal Committee, Jabalpur, by the then local Government u/s 38 (1) (f) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. From letter No. 240/XII, dated the 5th April 1930 (Annexure-A) addressed by the Chief Secretary to the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, it is evident that Nazul land measuring 68,890 sq. ft. out of plots Nos. From letter No. 240/XII, dated the 5th April 1930 (Annexure-A) addressed by the Chief Secretary to the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, it is evident that Nazul land measuring 68,890 sq. ft. out of plots Nos. 5, 6 and 8 in block No. LXXXIV of the Jabalpur town was transferred to the Municipal Committee on the conditions that the land would be used for the purpose of a garden and that no part of it shall be used for any other purpose without the previous sanction of the local Government, and that if these conditions were broken the land would be liable to be divested u/s 38 (2) and resumed by the Government without payment of any compensation and that if the land were to be resumed by the Government for any Government purpose the provisions of Section 38 (3) would apply. This land no doubt vested in the City of Jabalpur Corporation u/s 71 of the Act of 1948. It is also not disputed that the Municipal Committee or the Corporation used the land for the purpose for which it was granted. The argument that the land in question could not be taken away by the Government from the Corporation proceeds on the assumption that the Government's power to resume the land was limited under the grant only in the event of there being a breach of the condition about the user or of the land being required for Government purpose. 4. There is no justification for such an assumption. The grant of the land to the City Municipality in 1930 was u/s 38 (1) (f). That being so, it was subject to all the rights and obligations of the grantor and the grantee as well u/s 38 of the Act of 1922. u/s 38 (1) all property of the nature specified therein and situated within the limits of the Municipality vests in the Municipal Committee subject to any special reservation made or to any special conditions imposed by the State Government. Sub-section (2) of that Section gives to the Government power to direct that any property which has vested in a Committee under sub-section (1) shall cease to be so vested and to pass such orders as it thinks fit regarding the disposal and management of such property after the Municipal Committee has been divested of it. Sub-section (2) of that Section gives to the Government power to direct that any property which has vested in a Committee under sub-section (1) shall cease to be so vested and to pass such orders as it thinks fit regarding the disposal and management of such property after the Municipal Committee has been divested of it. Sub-section (3) speaks of the compensation payable in respect of any immovsable property which was transferred to the Committee otherwise than by sale for public purposes and which may subsequently be resumed by the Government The City Municipal Committee thus took the land subject to the above conditions also. It is erroneous to suppose that the grant was subjected only to the conditions specifically mentioned in the letter of the 5th April 1930 of the Government to the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division and to think that those conditions put a limitation on the power of the Government to resume the land under sub-section (2) at any time, The power given to the Government u/s 38(1)to make any ''special reservation" or to impose ''any special conditions'' with regard to the vesting of any property in the Committee does not contemplate 'waiver' by the Government of its wide power to resume the land whenever it likes. 'Reservation' does not mean waiver of a right. It is the withholding by the grantor of some right or privilege for his own use out of or in connection with the estate conveyed. The conditions that can be imposed are similarly on the grantee in regard to the land vested in it. It is a burden on the property vested and not a restriction on the right or privilege of the grantor. That being so, Government could not u/s 38 of the Act of 1922 make any grant putting a limitation on its own power to resume it at any time under sub-section (2). Such a condition in any grant would be contrary to the provisions of the Act and would be invalid. The grant made to the City Municipal Committee, Jabalpur, in 1930, did not in fact curtail the power of the Government to resume the land under subsection (2) of Section 38. Such a condition in any grant would be contrary to the provisions of the Act and would be invalid. The grant made to the City Municipal Committee, Jabalpur, in 1930, did not in fact curtail the power of the Government to resume the land under subsection (2) of Section 38. Even if such a condition had been inserted in the grant, its validity could not have been sustained on the ground that it was open to the Government to waive the advantage of the provisions of sub-section (2). It is no doubt true that any one may waive the advantage of law made solely for the benefit or protection of an individual in his private capacity. But under that principle Government could not divest itself of the right given and reserved to it under sub-section (2) of Section 38. The reason is that Government is not an individual and the waiver would infringe the public right and would be opposed to the general policy of the specific power given u/s 38 (2). 5. Under the agreement made in 1930, the land in question along with other Nazul lands vested in the City Municipal Committee subject to the following conditions:- "(1) The land shall be used only for the purpose of a garden and no part of it shall be used for any other purpose without the previous sanction of the Local Government. (2) If condition 1 is broken the land shall be liable to be divested u/s 38 (2) and resumed by Government and no compensation whatsoever shall be payable to the Municipal Committee upon such resumption. (3) If the land is resumed by Government for any Government purpose, the provisions of Section 38 (3) will apply." The language of condition No, 2 is plain enough. It means that if the condition about user were to be broken the land would be liable to be divested and resumed by the Government, and not that Government would have the right to resume it only if the condition about user were broken and in no other circumstances. There are no words in condition No. 2 to suggest any such limitation on the power of the Government to resume the land u/s 38 (2). It cannot even be given a construction go as to import a restriction on the power of the Government to resume the land u/s 38 (2). There are no words in condition No. 2 to suggest any such limitation on the power of the Government to resume the land u/s 38 (2). It cannot even be given a construction go as to import a restriction on the power of the Government to resume the land u/s 38 (2). It is well settled that a deed or grant has to be construed so as to make its terms and conditions valid. A construction making the condition invalid as being in contravention of the provisions of Section 38 (2) cannot be accepted. The object of the second condition is only to provide that no compensation whatsoever shall be payable to the Municipal Committee if the Government resumes the land if it is not used in accordance with condition No. 1. The third condition only makes it clear that compensation in accordance with Section 38 (3) would be payable even if the land is resumed by the Government for its own purpose. This condition was inserted obviously to rule out any controversy as to whether the Government was liable to pay compensation in respect of the land which once belonged to it and had been transferred to the Municipal Committee free of premium and ground-rent. The two conditions thus deal only with the question of payment of compensation and not with the power of the Government to resume the land. The second condition does not, therefore, in any way detract from the power of the Government to resume the land u/s 38 (2) at any time. 6. It is thus clear that the City Municipal Committee held the land on the statutory conditions u/s 38(2) that it could be resumed by the Government at any time. Thus the Committee incurred an obligation of handing over the land to the Government resuming it or any part of it u/s 38 (2). The land no doubt vested in the Corporation u/s 71 of the City of Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1943. But u/s 3 of that Act the obligations of the City Municipal Committee, Jabalpur, also became the obligations of the Corporation. The obligation here is one flowing from Government's right to resume the land u/s 38 (2) of the Act, which has to be read as a part of the grant itself. But u/s 3 of that Act the obligations of the City Municipal Committee, Jabalpur, also became the obligations of the Corporation. The obligation here is one flowing from Government's right to resume the land u/s 38 (2) of the Act, which has to be read as a part of the grant itself. The fact that the Corporation is constituted and governed by the Act of 1948 and not under the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, does not in any way alter the position. For, Section 3(1) of the Act of 1948 itself makes it clear that all obligations incurred by the Municipality of Jabalpur before the Coming into force of that Act shall be deemed to have been incurred by the Corporation as constituted under the Act. If, as has been pointed out earlier, the land was given to the City Municipal Committee, Jabalpur, subject to the Government's right to resume it u/s 38(2) and burdened with the corresponding obligation of the Committee, then it follows that the vesting of that land in the Corporation u/s 71 of the Act of 1948 is also Subject to that right and obligation. Therefore, on the terms of the grant itself ii was open to the Government to take away a piece of land transferred to the City Municipal Committee, Jabalpur, in 1930, and sub-sequently vesting in the Corporation, and to allot it to the opponent No. 2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner based himself solely on Section 81 of the Act of 1948 which says that the ''Provincial Government may resume any immovable property transferred to the Corporation by itself or by any local authority......". It was argued that the land in question once belonged to the Government of India and was transferred to the City Municipal Committee not by the Provincial Government but by the Government of India; and that, therefore, it could not be resumed u/s 81: It is no doubt true that in 1930 all lands and buildings in the provinces vested in the British Crown for the purposes of the Government of India and could be transferred by the Governor General-in-Council and any local Government on behalf of and in the name of the Secretary of State-in-council. The transfer of land effected in 1930 by the Provincial Government in favour of the City Municipal Committee, Jabalpur must be regarded as one on behalf of and in the name of the Secretary of State-in-Council and cannot be treated as property transferred to the Corporation by the Provincial Government for the purposes of Section 81 of the Act of 1948. Otherwise the transfer of the land to the City Municipal Committee in 1930 itself would be invalid. Learned Deputy Government Advocate did not rely on Section 81. His contention was that the transfer of the land to the City Municipal Committee in 1930 was subject to the conditions mentioned in the grant as well as those laid down in Section 38 (2) and that the vesting of the land in the Corporation under the Act of 1948 was subject to these conditions. We have already indicated earlier that this argument is Sound. 8. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the grant of and specified in the memorandum dated the 29th February 1956 (Annexure-B) made by the opponent-State to the non-applicant No. 2 is valid. The result is that this petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 100. The outstanding amount of security deposit after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner. Final Result : Dismissed