Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.S.SHRIVASTAVA
P.V.Satyanarayana Raju - Appellant
Versus
Kanumurijauakiram a Raju and others - Respondent
Decided On : 09-14-95
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - URBAN LAND CEILING ACT, 1976 - SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 26, 27 - ANDHRA PRADESH VACANT LANDS IN URBAN AREAS (PROHIBITION OF ALIENATION) ACT, 1972 - SECTIONS 3, 4, 5 - ANDHRA PRADESH VACANT LANDS IN URBAN AREAS (PROHIBITION OF ALIENATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 - SECTION 2 - ANDHRA PRADESH VACANT LANDS IN URBAN AREAS (PROHIBITION OF ALIENATION) REPEALED ACT, 1978 - SECTION 3 - CONTRACT - SALE OF LAND - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-appellant entered into an agreement with the defendants-respondents to purchase a plot of land measuring 484 square yards. The defendants-respondents received Rs. 1,000/- as advance and agreed to obtain permission from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, for the sale of the land. However, the defendants-respondents failed to obtain the permission and refused to execute the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the agreement between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendants-respondents was valid and enforceable. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, and the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972, and held that the sale of the land in question was not prohibited by these statutes. The court also held that the defendants-respondents had failed to perform their part of the contract by not obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendants-respondents was valid and enforceable? 2. Whether the sale of the land in question was prohibited by the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, or the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendants-respondents was valid and enforceable because: - The land in question was not part of a compact block as defined in the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972. - The sale of the land was not prohibited by Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Amendment Act, 1974, because the land was less than one thousand square meters in extent. - The defendants-respondents were not holding land in excess of the ceiling limit under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. 2. The court held that the sale of the land in question was not prohibited by the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, or the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972, because: - The land in question was not part of a compact block as defined in the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972. - The sale of the land was not prohibited by Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Amendment Act, 1974, because the land was less than one thousand square meters in extent. - The defendants-respondents were not holding land in excess of the ceiling limit under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the lower court, and decreed specific performance of the contract between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendants-respondents. The defendants-respondents were directed to give notice to the competent authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, within two months from the date of the judgment, and to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff-appellant upon deposit of the remaining amount of consideration within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffin O. S. No. 598/79 on the file of the IAdditional Judge, City Civila court, Hyderabad is the appellant in this appeal.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in brief, are as follows:on 25. 11. 1964 the respondents jointly purchased the land measuring 4575 square yards of plot No. 5 equivalent to plot No. E in S. No. 318/1 situated in Gaddeannaram village of Hyderabad vide sale deed Ex. B-1 with plan Ex. B-2 attached to it. On 03-05-1975 they sold 445 square yards of land, out of 4575 square yards for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- to Sri P. Ranga Raju vide sale deed Ex. A-3. All the respondents had l/4th share each, in the aforesaid land purchased by them on 25-11-1964. They divided the said land into 5 plots and out of it, one was sold to P. Rangaraju. On 10-06-1975 the 1st respondent sold 484 square yards of land out of the remaining 4130 square yards at the rate of Rs. 24/- per square yard and received Rs. 1,000/- as advance vide receipt Ex. A-2. After 2-3 days therefrom the respondents filed an application Ex. A-4 to the Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for permission to sell 484 square yards of land in plot No. 5 equivalent to plot No. E in S. No. 318/1 situated in Gaddennaram village, Hyderabad (in short "suit land")
( 3 ) THE plaintiff brought the suit for specific performance of the contract and damages, against the respondents, alleging that the respondents had sold the suit land to him, through his father-in-law.
( 4 ) HE has also undertaken to obtain permission from competent authority of urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (in short "urban Land Ceiling act") butthey did not obtain the permission in spite of repeated oral and written demands of the appellant. The plaintiff who was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by payment of the balance amount of consideration, the defendants are not taking any steps in obtaining the permission from the competent authority of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The appellant/plaintiff had to sell his plot at a low price in order to make the payment to the respondents. The cost of construction has also gone up. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific performance of his contract and to claim damages for Rs. 18,384/- and in the alternative for a decree for Rs. 30,000/- as also for a direction to the defendants/ respondents that they should apply in proper Forum to obtain permission from the competent authority of the Urban Land Ceiling Act before execution of the sale deed.
( 5 ) THE 1st defendant/respondent denied the allegations made in the plaint that the land was sold to the plaintiff by him on behalf of the remaining respondents also. He has also alleged, that on the request of the father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff he had agreed to sell his undivided share in the suit land at the rate of Rs. 24/- per square yard and had received Rs. 1,000/- as advance. But before accepting the money, he had specifically informed the father-in-law of the appellant/plain tiff who had come to purchase the suit land that it is difficult to obtain permission of the competent authority of the Urban land Ceiling Act and thereupon, the father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff had agreed that he would himself obtain the permission for selling the plot. Later, he informed him that a fresh agreement is required for obtaining the permission showing that a major portion of the consideration had been paid by the proposed purchaser. He is still ready and willing to sell his share of the suit land to the appellant/plaintiff if he obtains due permission from the competent authority of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. He has denied that appellant has suffered damages and is entitled to Rs. 18,384/- or Rs. 30,000/- as alleged. He has further pleaded mat the agreement is hit by Sections 4 and 5 of A. P. Vacant lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Amendment Act, 1972
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
