IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sirsa – Petitioner
Versus
Bimla Devi & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-2265 of 2016
Decided On : 18-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background on property allotment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions regarding the enforcement of transfer conditions. (Para 8) |
| 3. analysis of conditions and implications of property transfer. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 4. interpretation of the allotment terms and mandatory conditions. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. final decision rejecting the previous award. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
The question which arises in the present petition is as to whether the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) can uphold an alienation of property made in violation of the terms & conditions of the letter of allotment and issue a direction to transfer the plot.
2. The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the impugned award dated 15.05.2014(Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2-Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Sirsa.
3. Briefly summarised, the facts of the present case are that one plot bearing No.999 measuring 75 sq. meters situated in Sector 20, Part-II, Sirsa was allotted to one Smt. Seeto Devi wife of Late Sh. Bahadar Singh, resident of Village Patli Dabar, Tehsil & District Sirsa vide allotment letter No.1458 dated 01.06.1998 (Annexure P-1) under the policy named as Economically Weaker Sections. It was averred in the application preferred before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Sirsa that the Conveyance-deed of the above-said plot was executed by the HUDA now HSVP in favour of Smt. Seeto Devi vide Sr. No.5159 dated 17.07.2006 was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Sirsa. The above-said plot was transfer by Smt. Seeto Devi in favour of one Smt. Bhagwan Devi wife of Satnam Chand, resident of Sirsa for a sum of Rs.2,96,500/- vide sale-deed No.5178 dated 17.07.2006 i.e. on the date of execution of Conveyance-deed itself. The physical possession of the plot in question was also delivered to Smt. Bhagwan Devi by the original allottee Smt. Seeto Devi. Thereafter, the above-said Smt. Bhagwan Devi executed sale-deed of the said plot in favour of Bimla Devi(respondent No.1) vide sale-deed No.9231 dated 13.02.2007 for the same sale consideration of Rs.2,96,500/-. She took possession of the aforesaid plot from Bhagwan Devi and became owner in possession of the said plot. An application was thereafter moved by Bhagwan Devi in the office of the petitioner-HSVP for transfer of the ownership entries in her name in their record. The said transfer was refused by the authorities whereupon the application under Section 22 -C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was preferred before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Sirsa.
4. The petitioner-HSVP entered appearance before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Sirsa and filed joint reply contesting the petition. It was admitted that the plot in question was originally allotted to Smt. Seeto Devi wife of Late Sh. Bahadar Singh, resident of Village & Post Office, Patli Dabar, Tehsil & District Sirsa vide allotment letter No.1458 dated 01.06.1998. under the policy for Economically Weaker Sections (E.W.S.). The terms & conditions of the allotment prescribed in Condition No.24 of the allotment letter that the allottee would not be entitled to sell, transfer, gift or mortgage the plot in question for a period of ten years. The original allottee Smt. Seeto Devi did not comply with the above-said terms & conditions and executed the sale-deed before expiry of the above-said prohibitory period. The transfer being in violation of the terms & conditions, has no adverse bearing on the rights of the petitioner and that the petitioner would be entitled to ignore any such transaction carried out in breach of the mandatory terms & conditions. It was further averred that as per the procedure prescribed, in the event of any allottee seeking to transfer the purported plot by petitioner-HSVP, permission is required to be obtained from the Estate Officer, HSVP after de
Bombay Dyeing and Secy., Deptt. of Excise & Commercial Taxes v. Sun Bright Marketing (P) Ltd.
British Airways PLC v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 95
Inder Sain Mittal v. Housing Board Haryana
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
Point of law: There are any other legally recoverable dues from the petitioner, liberty may also be left to the competent Authorities to do so as per law.
The discretionary allotments made by the CMDA Chairman were invalid; any property transactions based on such allotments are unenforceable, subject to the outcomes of ongoing litigation.
No one can benefit from their own wrongful act, and mis-declaration in securing an allotment renders it improper.
Point of law: Since there is no case that the petitioner had not commenced production immediately after Exts.P1 and P2, the provisions of 'lock-in', even going by the '2020 Rules' cannot apply to the....
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
Agreements to sell land under the Gujarat Tenancy Act, 1948, without prior Collector approval are invalid and unenforceable, making related suits for specific performance unmaintainable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.