Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. Ravindra Bhat, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, JJ.
Vivekanand Sharma and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 521, 509, 724 and 725 of 2019
Decided On : 15-07-2019
Important Points
Subject
Land Law - SALE OF ALLOTTED LAND
Act Referred
Headnote
LAND ALLOTMENT - RAJASTHAN MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1959 - SECTION 80(2) - RAJASTHAN URBAN AREA (ALLOTMENT) OF LAND RULES, 1954 - RAJASTHAN SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1958 - SECTION 5 - SALE OF ALLOTTED LAND BY OFFICE BEARERS OF SOCIETY - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONS IN SALE DEED - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR TO SET ASIDE SALE DEED - APPLICABILITY OF SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ITC LIMITED V. STATE OF UP & ORS. - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
A land was allotted to Dausa Gangapur Motor Stand Union for the purpose of constructing a motor stand. The Town Improvement Board, Dausa allotted a parcel of land on 28.06.1960 by an order. The sale deed was subsequently registered, by the Board, in favour of the individual members of the Dausa Gangapur Motor Stand Union, in their capacity as office bearers. Subsequently in 1966 some individuals claiming themselves to be members of the Union executed sale deeds which are in dispute. The Municipal Board, Dausa filed an application under Section 80(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 for cancellation of the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the sale of the land by the office bearers of the society was not valid as it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. The Court also held that the Collector had the jurisdiction to set aside the sale deed under Section 80(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale of the land by the office bearers of the society was valid? 2. Whether the Collector had the jurisdiction to set aside the sale deed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the sale of the land by the office bearers of the society was not valid as it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. Section 5 of the Act clearly stipulates that property of any society vests in its governing body. In this case, the land was allotted by the Municipal Board to the society on whose behalf the office bearers, secured conveyance. In such event, without a proper resolution by the society that such transfer was for its benefit, or in accordance with the procedures prescribed in its bye-laws, the transfer could not have been supported. 2. The Court held that the Collector had the jurisdiction to set aside the sale deed under Section 80(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. State of UP & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 493, wherein it was held that the Collector has the power to set aside a sale deed if it is found to be in violation of the conditions of allotment.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
For the Appellant : R.B. Mathur, Nikhil Simlote, Paker Farooq and Rishi Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: Anil Mehta, AAG and Yashodar Pandey
JUDGMENT :
D.B. Civil Misc. Application Nos. 356/2019, 344/2019, 494/2019 & 495/2019:-
1. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
2. Applications are allowed.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 521/2019, 509/2019, 724/2019 and 725/2019:-
3. The appellants grievance is that the learned Single Judge erroneously upheld the order of cancellation of sale deed.
4. The facts- set out by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment are that the Dausa Gangapur Motor Stand Union, sought and was granted allotment of land for the purpose of constructing a motor stand. The Town Improvement Board, Dausa allotted a parcel of land on 28.06.1960 by an order. The sale deed was subsequently registered, by the Board, in favour of the individual members of the Dausa Gangapur Motor Stand Union, in their capacity as office bearers. Subsequently in 1966 some individuals claiming themselves to be members of the Union executed sale deeds which are in dispute.
5. The Municipal Board, Dausa filed an application under Section 80(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 for cancellation of the sale deed. In the meanwhile, apparently on 03.05.2000, on the application by the present appellants, the Board decided to shift the motor stand and permitted the appellants to use the land in dispute for commercial purposes and sought approval of the State Government. Objections were also invited subsequently. The resolution of 03.05.2000 of the Municipal Board was challenged before the District Collector, Dausa, which on 25.04.2001 directed maintenance of status quo. This order was eventually set aside by the Divisional Commissioner. The District Collector later after remand, quashed the resolution of 03.05.2000 by an order dated 26.07.2004 as well as the public notice.
6. In these circumstances, the present appellants approached this Court claiming to be aggrieved and contending inter alia that the Rajasthan Urban Area (Allotment) of Land Rules, 1954, under which the land was allotted and sale deed was registered, did not place any restriction upon the sale. It was also urged that the restrictive stipulation in clause 7, with respect to the sale without permission, was not enforced as it had been subsequently deleted.
7. The State and Municipal Board contended before the learned Single Judge that the purpose for which the land was allotted initially and subsequently sold, primarily was for use as motor stand and that allottee/union could not thereafter alienate or transfer it contrary to these conditions.
8. The learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings and the submissions of the parties and taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in ITC Limited Vs. State of UP & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 493, upheld the cancellations/setting aside of the sale- to the appellants. The Single Judge concluded as follows:-
"17. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the Municipal Board has rightly passed the resolution dated 03.05.2000 and therefore, the Collector has no jurisdiction to set aside the same as they have purchased the land in dispute by way of registered Sale deed is not acceptable because the Collector has rightly passed the order dated 26.07.2004 under its revisional jurisdiction as provided under Section 80 Sub-clause-2 of the Act of 1959. The second argument raised by counsel for the petitioners that the collector was not having jurisdiction to set aside the registered sale deed issued by the Improvement Board is also not acceptable as the Collector while adjudicating the matter under its revisional jurisdiction has rightly set aside the sale deed on the ground that condition no. 2 of the sale deed has been violated and the land in dispute was allotted only for the purpose of Bus stand. The third argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that there is violation of principles of natural justice as without hearing the petitioners order has been passed by the collector, in my considered
