An unregistered agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights or legal standing to contest proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, making any claims based on such agreements non-viable.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 15.1.2013 of the learned Single Judge (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) partly allowing the writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.4642 of 1992 – Ganesh Industrial Estate & 2 Others vs. Additional Deputy Collector & Competent Officer & Another, remanding the case back to the ULC Tribunal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act, 1976) for deciding the following issues with the following observations:

“12. Apart from the above, the other relevant aspects to be considered by the Tribunal were as under:

(1) Whether any agreement to sell was ever entered into since the possession was stated to have been handed over by the original owner in favour of Shree Ganesh Industrial Estate. If the agreement to sell never existed, the question of claiming any right may not arise but such aspect could be gone into only if the so called original agreement to sell is produced and its authenticity is proved by the process known to law by a person who is claiming the right pursuant to the so called agreement to sell.

(2) The so called Shree Ganesh Industrial Estate as such was not legal entity in the eye of law and unless such agreement was entered into by the original owner with any living person or any legal entity. As such agreement to sell was neither produced before the appellate authority nor before this Court, no view can be expressed at this stage but if the agreement is not in favour of any legal entity or living personality, it may have adverse effect on the so called claim.

(3) Further, the role or capacity of Vashrambhai Punjabhai Patel was also required to be considered and examined by the Tribunal as to whether Vashrambhai Punjabhai Patel could represent Ganesh Industrial Estate or not or whether he could be said as aggrieved for challenging the order of the first authority.

13. In my view, it was required for the Tribunal to examine the aforesaid aspects in addition to the above referred legal aspects of the so called claim, so called construction over the property before finally concluding on the aspects of maintainability of the appeal and/or for dismissal of the appeal.

14. As the present petition is essentially under article 227 of the Constitution, if the Tribunal has not properly examined the matter on the aspects which were germane to the exercise of the power by the Tribunal, it would be just and proper to remand the matter to the Tribunal. In my view, the dismissal of the appeal on the mere ground that no interest could be said to have been created under the Transfer of Properties Act in the land or property in question was not sufficient. Therefore, the order of dismissal of the appeal on such one aspect even if maintained to the extent that the original appellant had no interest in law over the property, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for examination of the other relevant aspects which were germane to the exercise of appellate power by the Tribunal.

15. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal for dismissal of the appeal is set aside but with the direction that the appeal No.11/92 shall stand restored to the file of the Tribunal. It is further directed that the Tribunal shall examine the matter in light of the observations made hereinabove in the present judgment and decide the appeal after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of the order of this Court. 16. Petition is allowe