An agreement to sell government leasehold property without required permission is void under law, and unjust enrichment occurs if the advanced payment is not returned.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellant of this Second Appeal was the defendant before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.56 of 1988 and he was the appellant before the 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.27 of 1996.

3. The respondent of this 2^nd Appeal was the plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.56 of 1988 and he was the respondent before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.27 of 1996. The suit of the plaintiff (who is the respondent in this 2^nd Appeal) against the defendant (who is the appellant in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.56 of 1988 was that, the suit land is a residential plot belonging to Government of Orissa under the control of the General Administration Department. The suit land was allotted to the plaintiff by the Government on lease basis for a period of 90 years with effect from 6.5.1966 on payment of premium Rs. 1036.06 Paise and on the yearly rent of Rs.15.50 Paise, for his residential purpose under a registered lease deed bearing No.5055 dated 6.5.1966, as he (plaintiff) was an ex-military person. After allotment of the suit residential plot on lease basis for a period of 90 years as per lease deed No.5055 dated 6.5.1966, he (plaintiff) constructed a Pucca house thereon with Asbestos roof consisting of 2 rooms and also put boundary wall on the east-west and south side of the suit plot and took electric and water connection to the same, for the purpose of construction of his main building after collecting funds from different sources. But, he could not able to construct his main building immediately on the suit plot on account of his illness and financial difficulties in his family, for which, he (plaintiff) requested defendant to purchase the suit plot along with the houses standing thereon from him with a condition that, he (plaintiff) shall sell the same only after obtaining permission from the Government for sale. To which, the defendant agreed and the total consideration amount thereof was fixed as Rs.14,000/-. In order to sell the suit plot along with the structures/houses thereon to the defendant for a consideration amount of Rs.14,000/-, he (plaintiff) received Rs.7000/- out of Rs.14,000/- as advance from the defendant, through his father by executing an agreement for sale on dated 10.12.1976 with a condition that, he (plaintiff) shall execute and register the sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit plot along with the structures/houses thereon only after obtaining permission for sale of the same from the Government and he(plaintiff) will receive the rest amount i.e. Rs.7,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed, but he (plaintiff) delivered possession of the suit plot along with the houses/structures thereon to the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement to sell i.e. on 10.12.1976 in favour of the defendant and since then, he (defendant) has been possessing the suit land and the houses thereon and has been letting out the houses on the suit land to different persons on rent.

5. After execution of the agreement dated 10.12.1976 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and delivering the possession of the suit plot to the defendant, he (plaintiff) applied before