JUDGMENT

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 271/80 dated September 22,1981. One Km. Leila Violet Manorama Laxmanan, daughter of Dr, P. N. Laxmanan submitted an application before the competent authority (Annex 1 filed in this Court on October 31, 1979) seeking permission to alienate 16,500, sq. feet of the land together with 4,141 sq. ft. built up area situated in plot No. 7/1, Block No. 32 of Jabalpur city bearing Municipal No. 578, South civil Line, Jabalpur to the respondent. On receipt thereof, the competent authority on December 29,1979 exercised option to purchase the property . In furtherance thereof of the owner executed the sale deed on May 16,1980 in favour of the State of Madhya Pradesh of the property which was agreed to be sold to the first respondent. The first respondent thereafter approached the High Court by way of above writ petition impugning the legality of the purchase made by the Government. The High Court in the judgment held that the sale was not legal. In reaching this conclusion, the High Court held that until the ceiling proceedings are completed in accordance with law and the surplus area is determined, the owner is not entitled to sell the land and thus purchase of the land by the Government is not valid in law. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. The relevant provisions, which require mention for rendering the controversy, are Ss. 27(1), 25(2) (a), 3(5) and 10 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976, (for short, the Act) Section 27 (1) postulates that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) of S. 5 and sub-s, (4) of S.10. no person shall transfer by way of sale........ any urban or urbanishable land with a building......... or a portion only of such building for period of ten years of such commencement or from the date on which the building is constructed, whichever is later, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. On receipt of such an application seeking permission by the person, sub-s. 5(a), gets attracted which envisages that the competent authority shall have the first option to purchase such land with building or a portion only of such building on behalf of the State Government at such price as may be agreed upon between the competent authority and the applicant. In case such option has not been exercised within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the application, clause (b) gives power to the person of that building or a portion only of such building, that it shall be lawful for such person to transfer the land to whomsoever he may like, provided that where the competent authority exercises within the period aforesaid the option to purchase such land with building or a portion only of such building, the execution of the sale deed shall be completed and the payment of the purchase price thereof shall be made within a period of three months from the date on which such option is exercised. It would thus be clear that subject to the provisions of sub-s. (3) of Section 5 and sub-s. (4) of S.10 and notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the person in excess of ceiling area shall not alienate such area except with the previous permission in writing by the competent authority.

3. It is true, as rightly contended by Sri. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent that sub-s. (3) of S.5, prohibits a person from alienating any vacant land by way of sale, etc. until he has furnished the statement under S.6 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-s.(1) of S.10, and any such transfer made in contravention thereof shall be deemed to be null and void. Equally under sub-s.(4) of S.10 during the period commencing on the date of publication of the notification under sub-s. (1), and en