The court ruled that purchasers acting in good faith cannot be penalized for violations committed by the seller, emphasizing the need for justice in property transactions.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Directing the respondents to allow registration and register mutations in the names of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, who are Himachal Agriculturists, as their sale deeds have already been duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Baddi (Respondent No. 3);

(ii) Directing the respondents to register sale deeds of the flats purchased by petitioners No. 3 to 6 who are Himachal Agriculturists, in housing colony known as Himachal One, Malku Majra-Opposite Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh;

(iii) Directing the respondents to desist from creating any hurdle in the registration of mutations and registration of sale deeds in relation to flats purchased by the petitioners/Himachal Agriculturists who are similarly situated, in project known as ‘Himachal One’ at Malku Majra, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, as detailed in the writ petition; and

(iv) Direct the respondents not to create any hurdle in the sale, purchase, gift, mortgage/any other mode of transfer permissible in law as the petitioners who are bonafide Himachal Agriculturists are allottees/owners in possession of flats.”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they have purchased flats in terms of Apartment Buyer Agreements in a Project duly approved and sanctioned by the respondent-State. They are Himachali Agriculturists. They purchased the flats from respondent No. 7 in Baddi. According to the petitioners, they made inquiries before purchasing the flats and verified the fact that the project proponent had constructed the flats after grant of permission by the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act over land measuring 26-19 bighas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 602,603,604,605,606,607,608,610 and 611 at Malku Majra, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P., which was duly purchased by the project proponent as per permission granted under Section 118 of the Act vide registered Sale Deed(s) dated 16.05.2007, appended with the petition as Annexure P-7.

3. As per the petitioners, after verifying the veracity of respondent No. 7 and permission granted for the construction of the flats constructed by the private respondent, they entered into agreement to sell with the private respondent. The entire sale consideration was duly paid to the private respondent and sale deeds were also registered by two petitioners. However, now the Revenue Authorities are refusing the attestation of mutation in the revenue records in favour of said petitioners, who have entered into registered sale deeds with the private respondent. Authorities are also refusing registration of sale deed(s) qua other petitioners, on the plea that as the private respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the permission which was granted to the said respondent under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) and as proceedings stand initiated against the said respondent for violation of Section 118 of the Act, therefore, sale deeds cannot be registered and in those cases wherein sale deeds have been registered, the mutation cannot be attested. It is in this background that the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are the victims of circumstances. He submitted that there is no fault on the part of the petitioners, as they purchased the flats from the private respondent, who was duly permitted by the concerned Government Agency after grant of permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act to construct these flats. He further submitted that the petitioners have raised loans for purchasing the flats and the Institutions/Banks from whom the petitioners have taken loans are threatening to recall the loans and have also starte