Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK
Mohd.Khasim - Appellant
Versus
V.Radha Krishna Sastry - Respondent
Decided On : 06-14-94
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - DECREE - EXECUTION - URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 20 - EXEMPTION - GRANT OF - EFFECT ON DECREE - DECREE BECOMING INFructuous - WHETHER EXECUTION CAN BE STAYED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, defendants in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, challenged the execution of the decree on the grounds that the decree had become infructuous due to the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1454-56 of 1993 and that the Government had no jurisdiction to allow the transfer of excess vacant land under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners could not raise new points in the revision petition as the matter had already been decided in C.R.P. No. 1579 of 1992, which had become final. The court also held that the judgment in Vasudeva vs. State of Karnataka (1993 (3) SCC Page 467) was not relevant to the facts of the case as it related to the mala fide exercise of power under Section 20 of the ULC Act and not to the grant of exemption in the present case. The court further held that the provisions of the ULC Act had no application in the present case as the events and changes in the law occurred prior to the commencement of the Act. The court also held that the petitioners could not challenge the decree on the ground that it was passed after the enforcement of the ULC Act as they had failed to raise this contention in the earlier proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the decree had become infructuous due to the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1454-56 of 1993? 2. Whether the Government had jurisdiction to allow the transfer of excess vacant land under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act)? 3. Whether the provisions of the ULC Act applied to the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the decree had not become infructuous as the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1454-56 of 1993 was not relevant to the facts of the case. 2. The court held that the Government had jurisdiction to allow the transfer of excess vacant land under Section 20 of the ULC Act as the exemption was granted in the peculiar circumstances of the case. 3. The court held that the provisions of the ULC Act did not apply to the present case as the events and changes in the law occurred prior to the commencement of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9-3-1993 in e. P. No. 20 of 1991 in O. S. Nd. 29 of 1965 on, the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad.
( 2 ) THE main submission made out on behalf of the petitioners is that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal no. 1454-56 of 1993 dated 30-3-1993, the decree which is the subject-matter of the execution proceedings has become infructuous and, therefore, such a decree cannot be executed. The other submission made out on behalf of the petitioners is that the Government has no jurisdiction to allow any person holding excess vacant land to transfer the same to others under the guise of exemption granted under Section 20 of the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the U. L. C. Act ) in view of the judgment of the Supreme court in Vasudeva vs. State of Karnataka (1) 1993 (3) SCC Page 467.
( 3 ) IN view of the above specific submissions it is necessary to trace out the background of the case to meet the contentions. Petitioners are the defendants in o. S. No. 29 of 1965 filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21 -12-1963. The trial Court partly decreed the suit but rejected to grant the relief for specific performance of the agreement of sale. As against the said decree the plaintiff in the suit filed C. C. CANo. 14 of 1972. On 26-10-1976 a division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal ordering specific performance of the agreement of sale. The operative portion of the judgment and decree reads as under :"in the result, we allow the appeal and cismiss the cross-objections. The plaintiff s suit for specific performance of agreement of sale is decreed and the second defendant (first revision petitioner Mohd. Khasim) and the first defendant s daughter Smt. Ameena begum (second revision petitioner) will execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. "subsequently the said decree was amended by the Division Bench in the following terms :"the decree will be amended by stating that the second defendant and the first defendant s daughter Ameena Begum will execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees. "as against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Division Bench of this Court no appeal was preferred and as such the judgment and decree of this Court in c. C. C. A. No. 14 of 1972 has become final. Pursuant to the judgment of the Division bench in CCCA No. 14 of 1972 the government exercising the power under section 20 of the U. L. C. Act granted exemption subject to certain conditions in g. O. Ms. No. 523 Revenue (UC II) Department dated 26-3-1979 in favour of the first defendant-decree holder enabling him to complete the sale transaction as per the terms of agreement of sale dated 21-12-1963. The plaintiff assigned the decree in favour of the respondents 2 to 5 herein. The assignees-decree holders, respondents 2 to 5 herein, filed E. P. No. 20 of 1991 in the trial court. They also filed E. A. No. 17 of 1988 for recognition of the assignment to enable them to proceed with the execution proceedings. The assignment was objected on number of grounds by the defendants-judgment debtors. The trial Court allowed the petition for recognition of the assignment by order dated 30-4-1992 and permitted the assignees to proceed with the execution proceedings. The order in EANo. 17 of 1988 dated 30-4-1992 was questioned by the petitioners herein, defendants in the suit in C. R. P. No. 1579 of 1992 on various grounds including the ground of prohibition of alienation and transfer of land and permission granted under Section 20 of the U. LC Act. On considering the grounds raised by the petitioners1 herein the c. R. P. No. 1579 of 1992 was dismissed. Since the parties to the revision petition are the same the order in C. R. P. No. 1579 of 1992 has become final and is binding on the parties.
( 4 ) AFTER the dismissal of the revision petition t
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
