A contract for sale of itself does not create any interest or charge. Without permission of the competent authority no property can be transferred.

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE six petitioners in these proceedings viz. , Taherbhoy Feeda Ally, Yayahbhoy Feeda Ally, Abdullabhoy Feeda Ally, Salehbhoy Feeda Ally, Dawoodbhoy Feeda Ally and Tayebhoy Feeda Ally seek to impugn an order No. 27/s/223 of 1977 dated the 6th April 1977 passed by the competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' ). The undisputed facts relevant to these proceedings are, inter alia, that the petitioners are owners in possession of premises Nos. 83a and 83b, Park Street (hereinafter referred to as 'the said premises' ). Under an agreement in writing dated the 2nd September 1976 the petitioner agreed to sell to Favourite Small Investment Limited, the respondent No. 4 in these proceedings, the said premises for a price of Rs. 8 lakhs on, inter alia, the following terms and conditions: (a) The sale would be subject to the petitioners obtaining the necessary certificate and/or permission under the said Act; (b) The petitioners would simultaneously with the execution of the agreement give vacant possession of the entire ground floor of premises No. 83a, Park Street to the respondent No. 4 who would be authorised to make repairs, alterations and additions therein on the understanding that if the transaction fell through then the said respondent would give back vacant possession of the said portion to the petitioners. In default, the respondent No. 4 would have to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 125 per day.

( 2 ) PURSUANT to and in terms of the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid by the respondent No. 4 to the petitioners as earnest. The ground floor of the said premises No. 83a, Park Street was made over to the respondent No. 4. On the 8th February 1977 an application was made by the petitioners to the First Land Acquisition Collector. Calcutta, the Competent Authority and the respondent No. 3 herein in the prescribed form, for his approval and/or permission as required under Section 27 of the said Act.

( 3 ) ON the 9th April 1977 the petitioners received the said notice dated the 6th April 1977 from the Competent Authority informing the petitioners, inter alia, as follows: --"on enquiry it reveals that the applicants already transferred premises Nos. 83a and 83b. Park Street, Calcutta to Favourite Small Investment Ltd. (transferee) by making over possession of the said premises to the transferee on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) only on the basis of an agreement executed between them and the transferee, without obtaining prior permission of the Competent Authority, under Section 27 (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976. The applicants are, therefore, no longer owners of the property and they are not entitled to make the application under Section 27 (2) of the said Act as owners of the property. "permission sought in the application is, therefore, refused. Inform the applicants furnishing a copy of this order to them. "

( 4 ) THE petitioners contend that the said order dated the 6th April 1977 is erroneous, without jurisdiction, null and void and not binding on the petitioners on grounds, inter alia, as follows: (i) The respondent No. 3 exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the said order as there had been no transfer at all of the said premises or any portion thereof to the respondent No. 4 or to anybody else as contemplated under Section 27 (1) of the said Act. (ii) The said order having been passed by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of consideration which he is not entitled to take into account under the provisions of the said Act, and without considering the application on its merit under Section 27 (2) of the said Act was mala fide. (iii) The respondent No. 3 having granted the petitioners no opportunity whatsoever to represent their case before passing the said impugned order acted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

( 5 ) A Rule nisi was issued in this applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document