Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.L. YADAV, J.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Muniba Khatoon Alias Mumtaj Dulhan Begum and Others - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 2764 of 1982
Decided On : 16-07-1985
URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 33 - SECTION 5(3) - SECTION 10(4) - SECTION 27(1) - Appeal against order of Competent Authority - Maintainability - Scope of Section 33 - Interpretation of statutory provisions - Necessity of compliance with Sections 5(3) and 10(4) - Permission under Section 27(1) - Constitutionality of Section 27(1) - Registered agreement to sell prior to enactment of Act - Bona fide transaction.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged an order of the District Judge, Aligarh, allowing an appeal against an order of the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act). The Competent Authority had directed the Sub-Registrar not to register a sale deed for the transfer of a property as it violated Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appeal against the order of the Competent Authority was maintainable under Section 33 of the Act. The court interpreted Section 33 to mean that an appeal lies against any order passed by the Competent Authority, except for orders passed under Section 11 or Section 30 of the Act. The court also held that Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act were enacted to prevent the defeat of the Act's provisions by the sale of land in excess of the ceiling limit. However, in the present case, the area sought to be transferred was less than the ceiling limit, and therefore, there was no necessity to obtain permission under Section 27(1) of the Act, which had been held to be constitutionally invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal against the order of the Competent Authority was maintainable under Section 33 of the Act? 2. Whether compliance with Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act was necessary in addition to obtaining permission under Section 27(1) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 33 of the Act provides for an appeal against any order passed by the Competent Authority, except for orders passed under Section 11 or Section 30 of the Act. The order of the Competent Authority in the present case was not an order passed under either of these sections, and therefore, the appeal was maintainable. 2. Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act were enacted to prevent the defeat of the Act's provisions by the sale of land in excess of the ceiling limit. However, in the present case, the area sought to be transferred was less than the ceiling limit, and therefore, there was no necessity to obtain permission under Section 27(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
B.L. YADAV, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the State of U.P. is directed against the order dated 14-10-1981 passed by the District Judge, Aligarh acting as the Prescribed Appellate Authority u/s 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. Respondent No. 2 intended to execute a sale deed in respect of house No. old 213N (present No. 4/59-A) Pahasu House, Aligarh (total area 1088 sq. meters), having covered area of 222.29 sq. mtrs. and appurtenant land 865.79 sq. mtrs. Respondent No. 1, the vendor submitted a declaration before the Sub-Registrar, Aligarh and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the vendees also submitted a statement giving details of the property owned by them. The Sub-Registrar Aligarh referred the declaration submitted by Respondent No. 1 to the Competent Authority constituted under the Act for verifying whether the proposed transfer of the property in question violated the provisions of Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act.
3. The Competent Authority got the enquiry made and in the meanwhile the State Government has also issued a direction (Annexure-2 to the petition) to the Director, U.P. Urban Ceiling, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow that in case any transfer was intended to be made - by any person and the land was governed by the provisions of the Act, a clarification may be obtained by the Registrar from the vendors and the vendees as to whether the transfer intended to be made violates the provisions of Section 5(3) and Section 10(4) of the Act. As the enquiry was made by the Sub-Registrar from the Competent Authority as stated above, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 9-6-81 that by the proposed transfer the provisions of Sections 5(3) and 10(4) of the Act are violated, hence the registration of the intended transfer need not be made. Against this order an appeal was filed by Respondent No. 1, which was allowed by order dated 14-10-81. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the State of U.P.
4. I have heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.K. Gupta for the Respondents.
5. Sri R.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State urged that no appeal was maintainable against the order dated 9-6-81 passed by the Competent Authority as that was not an order passed under the provisions of the Act, rather that was just a direction or communication given or expressed to the Sub-Registrar in connection with the registration of certain piece of land and building and it has nothing to do with the provisions of the Act and it was not an order passed u/s 8 of the Act or any other provision of the Act hence the appeal u/s 33 was not maintainable. He further urged that the impugned order passed by the District Judge did not contain any reasons and there was no justification to allow the appeal.
6. Sri V.K. Gupta learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand urged that the appeal u/s 33 of the Act was maintainable and the order of the District Judge is correct. The transfer intended to be made in respect of the land was well within the ceiling limit, inasmuch as Aligarh was at serial No. 11 in the State of U.P. in Schedule I and it was In category No. 3 and further u/s 4(1)(3) of the Act 2000 sq. mtrs. was the ceiling limit and the area intended to be transferred was about 1088 sq. mtrs. along with the building, hence even permission of the Competent Authority was not required. Even before the enforcement of the Act in 1976 there was a registered agreement to sell dated 20-4-74 and thereafter even a suit for specific performance of the contract was filed and decreed and in pursuance thereof the sale deed has also been obtained. Hence the Sub-Registrar was not justified in refusing the registration of the sale deed.
7. The first point for consideration arise
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
