Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. and Faizanuddin, J.
SURENDRAKUMAR, JABALPUR - Appellant
Versus
KUMARI LILAWATI VIOLET MANORAMA LAXMANAN, JABALPUR - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 271 Of 1980
Decided On : 09/22/1981
A perusal of section 27(5) goes to show that the option has to be exercised by the Competent Authority within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application for permission; and in case no option is exercised within this period, the owner becomes entitled to transfer the property to whomsoever he may like.
If the delay is due to inaction of the owner in taking steps for completion of the sale deed, the option once exercised does not lapse and a sale deed executed even after three months from the date of the option remains valid. [Para 2]
(2) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-S. 27(1)-has no application to transfer of building and land appurtenant-no permission to transfer is 1tecessary.
A building and land appurtenant thereto can in no situation be declared to be surplus or exceeding the ceiling area prescribed by the Act. Therefore, a building and appurtenant lands are always within the ceiling area and so no permission would be needed under section 27(1) (or sale of a building and land appurtenant to it, irrespective of the fact that the owner holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, AIR 1981 SC 234 referred to. [Para 7]
(3) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Ss. 27(1) & 27(5) application under section 27(1) not tenable-competent authority could not exercise option under section 27(5). [Para 8]
(4) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976-Ss. 5(3), 10(4), 26 & 27 -agreement to sell relates to land and building and appurtenant land-section 27 is not attracted-the agreement to sale becomes valid on issue of notification.
It is true that the agreement is a composite agreement and it is not possible to demarcate the appurtenant land from the vacant land or to divide the agreement in two parts; one in respect of buildings and appurtenant land and the other in respect of vacant land. But from this it does not follow that section 27 becomes applicable.
The composite agreement like the one existing in this case between the petitioner and respondent cannot be implemented at this stage not because of any want of permission under section 27 but because of restrictions contained in respect of transfer of vacant land under sections 5(3), 10(4) and 26. These sections do not prohibit the holder from entering into agreement for transfer. They only prohibit transfer. Therefore, after the period during which these sections operate is over and the requirements of those section are satisfied, it may be possible to implement a composite agreement like the one existing in this case without any recourse to section 27. [Para 9]
The provisions of section 27 (1) and subject to the provisions of section 5 (3) and 10(4).
[Para 10]
( 1 ) PLOT No. 7/1 situated in South Civil Lines, Jabalpur, with a bungalow and outhouses belongs to Kum. Lilawati, respondent No, 1 in this petition. The entire area of the plot is 38,115, sq. ft. The area on which the constructions stand is 5,422 sq. ft. The petitioner entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 1 on 11th-September 1978 for purchase of 16,500 sq. ft. of land out of plot No. 7/1 including an area of 4,142 sq. ft. covered by the bungalow, garage and some outhouses for a consideration of Rs. 50. 000/ -. The petitioner and Respondent No. 1 both applied under Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to the Competent Authority for permission for sale of the aforesaid property in accordance with the agreement dated 11th Sep. 1978. This application was made on 31st Oct. 1979. The Competent Authority on 29th Dec, 1979 exercised the option for purchase of the property on behalf of the State Government under Section 27 (5) (a) of the Act. A sale deed in pursuance of this option was executed on 16th May 1980 on behalf of respondent No. 1 in favour of the State Government. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the option exercised by the Competent Authority and the sale deed executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of the Government be quashed. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to execute a sale deed in respect of the property in favour of the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sale deed in favour of the State Government was ineffective as it was not executed within three months of the exercise of the option by the Competent Authority. Learned counsel in this connection relies upon the proviso to Section 27 (5), which enacts, that where the Competent Authority exercises the option, the execution of the sale deed shall be completed and the payment of the purchase price shall be made within a period of three months from the date on which such option is exercised. A perusal of Section 27 (5) goes to show that the option has to be exercised by the Competent Authority within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application for permission; and in case no option is exercised within this period, the owner becomes entitled to transfer the property to whomsoever he may like. The section thus in clear terms provides the consequence of not exercising the option within the period of sixty days. The consequence being that the option to purchase lapses after the expiry of this period. This section, however, nowhere provides as to what will happen when the option is exercised within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application for permission but no sale deed is executed within three months from the date of the option. Whatever may be the position, when sale deed is not executed and price is not paid within this period because of laches of the Government, we are clearly of opinion that if the delay is due to inaction of the owner in taking steps for completion of the sale deed, the option once exercised does not lapse and a sale deed executed even after three months from the date of the option remains valid. If the option which has been exercised and which confers on the State Government the right to purchase can be said to lapse even though the State Government has been throughout ready and willing to complete the sale within the statutory period of three months but the sale deed is not executed within this period because of inaction or negligence of the owner, it would be possible for the owner to bring about this result in every case wheneverhe wants not to sell the property to the Government. Such a construction will make Section 27 (5) wholly ineffective to serve the purpose for which it was enacted, i. e. to give the Government preferential right to purchase. The facts relevant on this point are that respondent No. 1 resides at Bombay. In proceeding
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
