IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Sanjeeb Kumar Nath, S/o. Late Bhadra Kanta Nath & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Town and Planning Deptt. & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 2585, 2586 of 2020
Decided On : 24-05-2023
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 21A - Registration (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009 - Registration (Assam Amendment) Act, 2021 - Section 2 - Registration (Assam Amendment) Act, 2022 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 213 - Execute deed of sale - Order to grant NOC - Petitioners seeking an enquiry upon respondent No.6 by said authority on account of illegal constructions – Court do not find any reason as to why there should be an impediment upon respondent Nos.5 & 6 to execute deed of sale in favour of petitioners in as much as there is no requirement of NOC from Office of Deputy Commissioner pursuant to Amending Act of 2021 - Para 28.
Finding of the Court: Court do not find any reason as to why there should be an impediment upon respondent Nos.5 & 6 to execute deed of sale in favour of petitioners in as much as there is no requirement of NOC from Office of Deputy Commissioner pursuant to Amending Act of 2021 for purpose of registration of flats - Question of issuance of a direction to Deputy Commissioner to issue NOC does not arise in facts of instant case - Grievances of petitioners of non-consideration by respondent Nos.2 & 4 have been duly redressed by authorities and as regards respondents No.3 in view of discussion and observation made in paragraph No.17 to 28 above, there arises no question of issuance of a writ, direction or order to grant NOC in view of Amending Act of 2021, under such circumstances, Court is not inclined to issue any writ, direction or order in writ petitions to Deputy Commissioner.
Result: Petitions disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S.P. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 3 as well as Ms. S. Chutia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. Also heard Mr. P.C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 & 6.
2. Both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order taking into account the factual semblance as well as the legal points being similar.
3. It appears from the perusal of the writ petitions that the petitioners in both the writ petitions had booked flats in Agrim Vista-Block-VI and entered into registered agreement for sale with the respondent No.5, who is one of the Directors of the respondent No.6. It has been stated in the writ petitions that the petitioners were issued the letters of possession and in the said letters of possession, the petitioners were instructed to complete some milestone activities before handing over the possession of the flats. Amongst those activities, one of such activity amounts to registration of the apartment.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioners have made all payments to the respondent No.5 for peaceful handover of the possession of the flats. The possession of the flats were also handed over to the petitioners. But there are certain grievances of the various flat owners including the petitioners on the ground of non-registration of the sale deeds, formation of the society, opening of the exit gate and non-construction of various particulars as mentioned in Schedule-C to the Agreements for sale.
5. It has also been mentioned that there were series of meetings between the various residents of the flats sold by the respondent No.6 with the respondent No.5. There were certain promises made by the respondent No.5. But such promises were not kept. On the ground that the said promises were not kept, the petitioners along with other residents of the apartment in question, submitted representation to the Public Grievances Redressal Officer, GMDA, Guwahati on 27.08.2019 seeking an enquiry upon the respondent No.6 by the said authority on account of illegal constructions.
6. A perusal of the said representation dated 27.08.2019 shows the details in respect to which the petitioners along with the other residents have alleged illegal constructions. The were:- (i) exit gate has been blocked by making of a barricade; (ii) children’s play area and basket ball court was not constructed according to the GMDA approved plan; (iii) children’s park area has been converted into parking spaces which was not there in the original plan and (iv) entry gate has 90° curved which is not in accordance with the original plan.
7. In addition to the said representation, the petitioners along with other residents also submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) requesting for an update on the status of the sale permission and the related matters. In the said representation, it was stated that more than 70% of the flats have been sold to different owners by the respondent No.6, and as such, the residents of the said flats have a legal and lawful right to form a society of their own. However, the respondent No.6 had not relinquished its right and also not provided the detail documents which are required to form a Cooperative Society. It was also alleged in the said representation that no papers as regard the occupancy certificate have been provided by the respondent Nos.5 & 6.
8. It further appears on the basis of the said representation, a letter dated 21.12.2019 was issued by the Branch Officer, Land Settlement Branch to the Circle Officer, Azara Revenue Circle whereby the Circle Officer, Azara Revenue Circle was requested to give an update as regard the status of the sale permission and related matters.
Section 2 of amending Act of 2021 would reveal that house, flat, residential apartment, commercial building or any construction or structure erected on a plot of land was brought outside purview of S....
Unauthorized construction violating building regulations, non-compoundable violations, and jurisdiction of the Executive Officer and Deputy Commissioner.
The Sub-Registrar must register documents presented for registration unless legally prohibited, following the Registration Act's provisions.
Building permits obtained through misrepresentation can be revoked by the Commissioner, emphasizing the necessity for truthful declarations in property disputes.
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued without evidence of a demand for registration and subsequent refusal; misleading statements in affidavits can lead to dismissal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.