SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 243

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J
Smti Sweta Mazumdar Choudhury W/o Mr. Samarendra Choudhury - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam - Respondent
WP(C) 2505 / 2022
Decided On : 06-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: MS D BORGOHAIN, MR. P GOHAIN,MS. M SARMAH
For the Respondent: MR. N. GOSWAMI, GA, ASSAM, MR. D CHAKRABARTY MR. S K DAS, MS. S B CHOUDHURY

IMPORTANT POINT
A valid transfer of property requires a registered sale deed; absence of such renders the transfer invalid under the Assam Apartment Act, 2006.

Headnote:

(A) Assam Apartments (Construction and Transfer of Ownership) Act, 2006 - Section 5(2) - Transfer of property - The petitioner challenged the allotment of a flat to the respondent, claiming it was done without a valid sale deed, violating the Act. The court found no valid transfer occurred due to the absence of a registered sale deed, thus setting aside the transfer. (Paras 5 , 29 , 33 )

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Definition of sale - The court reiterated that ownership of immovable property cannot be transferred without a registered instrument, emphasizing the necessity of registration for validity. (Paras 10 , 32 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioner's late father owned a flat, which was allegedly transferred to the respondent without proper documentation after his death. The petitioner contended that the transfer was fraudulent and illegal.

Findings of Court:

The court determined that the transfer was invalid due to lack of a registered sale deed and that the authorities acted beyond their powers.

Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer was valid under the Assam Apartment Act and whether the authorities had the power to transfer the flat.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer lacked legal validity as it was not executed according to the statutory requirements, and the matter of alleged fraud was to be resolved in a separate investigation.

Result: Writ petition partly allowed and disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

(KARDAK ETE, J.)

Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned State Counsel appearing for the State respondent, Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 and Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the letter dated 29.02.2020, issued by the Managing Director, Assam State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd., Assam (in short “the HOUSFED”), by which the flat owned by the petitioner’s late father has been allotted to the respondent No.5, namely, Samarendra Kalita. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, to cancel the allotment of Flat No.C-702 in favour of the respondent No.5 and for its restoration in favour of the legal heirs of Late Abdul Muhib Mazumdar i.e. the petitioner and her younger sister.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the late father of the petitioner Abdul Muhib Mazumdar become the lawful owner of the Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment and possessed and occupied the said flat premises for his use and that of his family. Her Late father used to pay all the monthly charges, bills, taxes, etc. to the concerned authorities. The father of the petitioner, due to various old age ailments, was under medical treatment till 03.11.2021, at the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), when the petitioner used to take care of him being his daughter and died Intestate on 03.11.2021, leaving behind his two daughters i.e. the petitioner and her younger sister as legal heirs and successors of the said flat premises.

4. After the death of her father, the petitioner visited the concerned HOUSFED Office at Beltola, Guwahati and met the officer on duty. The petitioner was shocked to know when she was informed that the said flat has already been transferred on 29.02.2020 in the name of one Sri Samarendra Kalita, the respondent No.5 herein and thus informed that the said flat is no longer standing in the name of the petitioner’s deceased father. The petitioner was surprised by the information as her father had never sold out and transferred the said flat to any person during his lifetime. It is the contention of the petitioner that after coming to know of such information about the transfer of the said flat to the respondent No.5, she immediately filed an application under the Right to Information Act with the HOUSEFED and collected all the documents and lodged an objection for further transfer of the said flat premises vide her letter dated 15.11.2021, requesting not to create any further transfer of the said flat. The petitioner have been furnished with the documents relating to allotment letter dated 08.12.2016 to her deceased father, affidavit of her late father dated 19.09.2019, letter dated 19.09.2019 to the HOUSEFED authority by her late father seeking permission to sale the said flat, affidavit of respondent No.5 dated 19.09.2019, authority letter in favour of one Nurul Rahim Mazumdar dated 19.09.2019, letter dated 12.09.2020 to HOUSEFED on behalf of her late father by one Nurul Rahim Mazumdar to transfer the property to respondent No.5 and the impugned re-allotment letter 29.02.2020, issued by the HOUSEFED to the respondent No.5.

5. Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after perusal of the above documents, it is revealed that there was no sale deed nor any registered documents with regard to the sale of the said flat from the petitioner’s deceased father’s name to that of the respondent No.5, as required under the Assam Apartments (Construction and Transfer of Ownership) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assam Apartment Act, 2006’) and Rules, 2010 enacted there under. Therefore, it is clear that the transfer of the said flat from the petitioner’s father’s name to that of the respondent No.5 has been carried out in clear violation of the said Act an







                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top