1988 Supreme(Raj) 884

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.C.Sharma, J.
Man Mohan Dayal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 37 of 1976.
Decided On : 1-12-1988

Headnote:

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE OF LAND - ORDER OF ADMINISTRATOR OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - VALIDITY - SANCTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT - NECESSITY - CONTRACT FOR SALE - REQUIREMENTS - LIMITATION - ARTICLE 120 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of land against the defendants, the State of Rajasthan, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, and Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The plaintiff claimed that he had made an application to the Municipal Council, Jodhpur for purchase of a plot of land measuring 10781 square yards, situated in Hakimon Ka Bagh, Jodhpur and shown in red colour by marks v c l n in the site plan enclosed to the plaint under the provisions of the Marwar Patta Ordinance. Upon the application of the plaintiff, this plot of land was auctioned on June 12 and 13, 1956 between 5.30 P.M. and 6.30 P. M. and the highest bid of Rs. 7101 /- was of the plaintiff in that auction. The plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs. 2000/- representing more than 1/4th amount of the auction money with the Municipal Council, Jodhpur in part payment of the sale price by a cheque dated June 13, 1956 drawn on the State Bank of Jodhpur. This cheque was got encashed by Municipal Council and a receipt dated June 28, 1956 was issued in favour of the plaintiff. After the auction of this plot and before issuing a patta in favour of the plaintiff in respect thereof, a proclamation dated December 7, 1956 was issued inviting objections and thereafter on May 6, 1957, the Administrator of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur passed an order that this plot of land may be given to the plaintiff, who was the highest bidder, at the rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard and the Administrator also sanctioned the issue of a patta in favour of the plaintiff for this land after expiry of the period of appeal. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was accepted on June 10, 1957. The plaintiff filed a revision before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan against the order of the Additional Commissioner which was accepted by the Board on December 27, 1960 and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated June 10. 1957 was set aside. Sardar High School, Jodhpur then filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan against the order of the Administrator of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur dated May 6, 1957 which was dismissed by the Board on February 22 1965. Thus the order of the Administrator dated May 6, 1957 for sale of this plot to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard and the grant of patta in his favour became final. During the pendency of the appeal of Sardar High School, Jodhpur, the State of Rajasthan had constituted Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and the Khalsa (Government) land of Jodhpur city came within the jurisdiction of the Urban Improvement Trust. Since this plot of land had been sold to the plaintiff on May 6, 1957 and the Municipal Council, Jodhpur had also accepted an amount of Rs. 2000/- as against the sale price from the plaintiff this land did not fall within the category of khalsa land. The plaintiff even then made applications both to Municipal Council, Jodhpur and Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to grant a patta in favour of the plaintiff in respect of this land after accepting the balance of the price amount and to deliver its possession to the plaintiff, but both these defendants Nos. 2 and 3 neither granted a patta not other title dead in favour of the plaintiff nor delivered its possession to him. The plaintiff served notices dated July 29, 1967 upon the State of Rajasthan and Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and also upon the Municipal Council. Jodhpur on June 29, 1970 but with no effect. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the present suit against the respondents praying that a decree for specific performance may be passed against the respondent to the effect that after accepting the balance sale price of Rs. 19,562/-, they should execute a patta or other title deed in plaintiffs favour in respect of the suit plot of land and also a decree for possession over it.

Finding of the Court:

1. The order of the Administrator, Municipal Council, Jodhpur dated May 6, 1957 for sale of the suit plot of land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard and the grant of patta in his favour was illegal and void as the Administrator had neither obtained previous sanction of the State Government for transfer of the land to the plaintiff nor he had jurisdiction to pass the order. 2. There was no valid contract for sale of the suit plot of land between the plaintiff and the Jodhpur Municipality and there was only an order of the Administrator regarding sale of this plot of land. 3. The suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff had not filed the suit within three years of the expiry of the period given in notice Ex. A8 and non-compliance of the requirements of notice was itself a clear indication to the plaintiff that the respondents were not issuing the patta and delivering the plot.

Issues: 1. Whether a civil right had been created in favour of the plaintiff appellant by virtue of the order of the Administrator, Municipal Council. Jodhpur dated May 6, 1957 for conveyance of the suit plot of land measuring 10781 square yards which could be specifically enforced against the defendants and more particularly against the defendant No. 3? 2. Whether the order dated May 6, 1957 made by the Administrator, Jodhpur Municipality was illegal and void? 3. Whether the order dated May 6, 1957 neither amounted to sell nor an agreement to sell the suit plot of land to the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff cannot. therefore. either on the basis of any contract or of any statutory order get purported obligation specifically enforced against any of the respondents? 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff will be governed by the general provisions contained in section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? 6. Whether the plaintiff's right arises only when the obligation cast upon the Municipal Board is performed, that is to say, after the Municipal Board had relinquished the It in favour of the Collector? 7. Whether the plaintiff's right cannot be defeated because the Municipal Board chooses not to perform its obligation and the Courts have power to prevent the breach of an obligation in the circumstances of the case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order for sale of land passed by an Administrator of a Municipal Council without obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government is illegal and void. 2. A valid contract for sale of land requires a written contract signed by the President and attested by the Secretary of the Municipal Council and sanction of the Minister Incharge or State Government. 3. A suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of land is barred by limitation if it is not filed within three years of the expiry of the period given in the notice to the defendants to comply with the requirements of the notice.

Final Decision: The first appeal was dismissed and the parties were left to bear their own costs of the appeal.