2016 Supreme(HP) 1808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA, JJ.
Valley Iron & Steel Company Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
CWP No. 1689 of 2016
Decided on : 20-10-2016

The sale certificate issued by a Court or an officer authorized by the Court does not require registration. The rigors, fetters and restrictions contained in Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 are not applicable to the case in hand, where the subject matter of the auction proceedings was a constructed building and machinery, and not agricultural land or land subservient to agricultural land.

Headnote:

The Court held that the sale certificate issued by a Court or an officer authorized by the Court does not require registration. The Court also held that the rigors, fetters and restrictions contained in Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 are not applicable to the case in hand, where the subject matter of the auction proceedings was a constructed building and machinery, and not agricultural land or land subservient to agricultural land.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner participated in an auction conducted by the Official Liquidator pursuant to an order of the High Court and became the highest bidder. The petitioner deposited a huge amount and was issued a sale certificate. However, the petitioner was unable to register the sale deed or conduct resale of the property due to the requirement of obtaining permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (the Act). The petitioner challenged the applicability of Section 118 to the auction sale and sought directions to register the sale deed and conduct resale of the property.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the subject matter of the auction proceedings was a constructed building and machinery, and not agricultural land or land subservient to agricultural land. The Court also found that the auction notice did not contain any condition requiring the successful bidder to obtain permission under Section 118 of the Act. The Court held that the rigors, fetters and restrictions contained in Section 118 of the Act are not applicable to the case in hand.

Issues: 1. Whether the sale certificate issued by a Court or an officer authorized by the Court requires registration. 2. Whether the rigors, fetters and restrictions contained in Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 are applicable to the case in hand, where the subject matter of the auction proceedings was a constructed building and machinery, and not agricultural land or land subservient to agricultural land.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the sale certificate issued by a Court or an officer authorized by the Court does not require registration, relying on the provisions of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the decision of the Supreme Court in B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and others, (2007) 5 SCC 745. 2. The Court held that the rigors, fetters and restrictions contained in Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 are not applicable to the case in hand, where the subject matter of the auction proceedings was a constructed building and machinery, and not agricultural land or land subservient to agricultural land, relying on the provisions of Section 2(7) of the Act and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nirmal Singh v. Randhir Sharma, 1994 (2) Sim.L.C. 255.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions: (i) That in the given circumstances of the case, rigour of Section 118 of the Act is not applicable to the case in hand; (ii) That petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, subject matter of the lis; (iii) That the revenue record is not the proof of title, is just for collection of rent and will not change the status of the petitioner as owner of the said property in any way; (iv) That petitioner, being the absolute owner of the said property, is within its rights, power and competence to sell the property in favour of any Bonafide Himachali; (v) That the Registering Authority to register the said sale deed without asking for any permission or registration of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner as auction purchaser; (vi) That the Revenue authorities to attest the mutation in favour of Bonafide Himachali in terms of direction (iv) supra; (vii) That this order will not confer any rights upon the petitioner of being Bonafide Himachali.