1. Dispute over land title and auction validity following surplus declaration and subsequent transfer under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 429
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Shri Saurav Jain & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M/s A. B. P. Design & Anr – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4448 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29868 of 2018)
Decided On : 05-08-2021
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Rahat Bansal, Arvind Mohan, Varun Mudgal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manoj Swarup, Jawad Tarikh, Mrigank Prabhakar, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Rahat Bansal, Arvind Mohan, Varun Mudgal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manoj Swarup, Jawad Tarikh, Mrigank Prabhakar, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Any transfer in contravention of provisions of Section 5(3) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would be null and void.
(2) Cross-objection – It is not necessary that challenge to adverse findings of lower court needs to be made in form of a memorandum of cross-objection – Only when a part of decree has been assailed by respondent, should a memorandum of cross-objection be filed.
(3) Principle stipulated in Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC can be applied to petitions under Article 136 of Constitution because of this Court’s wide powers to do justice under Article 142 of Constitution.
Headnote:
(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 5 – Claim based on title of land – Any transfer in contravention of provisions of Section 5(3) would be null and void – When case was remanded, transferor could not have transferred suit property, having regard to clear bar which is contained in provisions of Section 5(3) – No transfer of land could have been lawfully made and any such transfer in contravention with provision would be null and void. (Paras 19 and 20)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 22(1) – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Cross-objection – It is not necessary that challenge to adverse findings of lower court needs to be made in form of a memorandum of cross-objection – Only when a part of decree has been assailed by respondent, should a memorandum of cross-objection be filed – Otherwise, it is sufficient to raise a challenge to an adverse finding of court of first instance before appellate court without a cross objection – Principle stipulated in Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC can be applied to petitions under Article 136 of Constitution because of this Court’s wide powers to do justice under Article 142 of Constitution – Since principle in Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC furthers cause of justice by providing party other than ‘aggrieved party’ to raise any adverse findings against them, this Court can draw colour from Order XLI Rule 22 CPC and permit objections to findings. (Paras 25, 27 and 28)
(C) Supreme Court Rules 2013 – Order 21 Rule 3(c) – Special Leave Petition – Scope and ambit – Under Order 21 Rule 3(c) of Supreme Court Rules 2013, SLPs are to be confined to pleadings before court whose order is challenged – However, with leave of Court, additional grounds can be urged at the time of hearing. (Para 29)
(D) Constitution of India – Articles 142 and 136 – Power to do complete justice – Apex Court in view of its plenary jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution read with its power to do complete justice under Article 142, can entertain new grounds raised for first time if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing additional evidence, specifically one concerning jurisdiction of court which goes to root of matter. (Para 39(v))
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment dated 22nd February 2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a first appeal1 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. On 18 October 2011, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad dismissed a suit2 instituted by the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal by the first respondent and reversed the judgment of Trial Court, holding that the auction conducted by Moradabad Development Authority (MDA) in respect of the land in dispute is null and void. The appellant is an auction purchaser who purchased the suit land from the MDA. MDA has been impleaded as the second respondent to these proceedings. Both the appellant and the second respondent have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the first respondent over the land.
Findings of Court:
High Court has held that the document dated 31 July 1992 on the basis of which possession was transferred to MDA does not evidence actual physical possession but is only a paper transaction. The High Court held that no material was forthcoming on whether actual and physical possession was taken by the Competent Authority from the land owner and it held that in the absence thereof, the first respondent, as the purchaser from Zahid Hussain, would continue to have a valid title. The High Court has entered these findings despite the fact that by a process of engineered drafting, the first respondent sought no reliefs in regard to the proceedings under the ULCRA (to obviate a bar to the maintainability of the suit) and did not implead either the State or the Competent Authority who would have been in a position to answer the challenge.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Validity of land transfer under ceiling laws — actual versus paper possession — bar on civil court jurisdiction — maintainability of suit challenging auction. (Para 8 , 9 , 13 , 14 )
3. Transfer of excess land without statutory notification is void — permission for retainable land does not cover surplus land — civil jurisdiction is impliedly excluded. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
4. Transfers in contravention of Section 5(3) ULCRA are null and void; civil court jurisdiction is impliedly excluded for matters arising under the Act. (Para 19 , 35 , 37 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — suit dismissed — costs awarded to appellant. (Para 39 , 40 )
6. When is a transfer of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit void under the ULCRA?
A transfer is null and void if made before the landowner furnishes a statement under Section 6 and the Competent Authority publishes a notification regarding the excess vacant land under Section 10(1). (Para 18 , 19 )
7. Does the ULCRA exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts regarding matters arising from ceiling proceedings?
Yes, the jurisdiction is impliedly excluded because the Act provides finality to appellate orders, offers adequate remedies, is a complete code, and expressly excludes jurisdiction in specific sections. (Para 35 , 37 )
8. Can a respondent challenge an adverse finding in a lower court without filing a memorandum of cross-objection?
Yes, if the ultimate decree is in the respondent's favor, they may support the decree by challenging adverse findings without a formal memorandum of cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
9. Can a party raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction for the first time before the Supreme Court under Article 136?
Yes, pure questions of law that go to the root of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136, as decrees passed without jurisdiction are nonest in law. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
1 This appeal arises from a judgment dated 22 February 2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a first appeal1[First Appeal No. 411 of 2011] under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”). On 18 October 2011, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad dismissed a suit2[Original Suit No. 602 of 2008] instituted by the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal by the first respondent and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court, holding that the auction conducted by Moradabad Development Authority (“MDA”) in respect of the land in dispute is null and void. The appellant is an auction purchaser who purchased the suit land from the MDA. MDA has been impleaded as the second respondent to these proceedings. Both the appellant and the second respondent have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the first respondent over the land.
Facts
2. The first respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad claiming to be a “transferable owner and cultivator” of lands comprising of Gata No. 200/1 admeasuring 0.1300 hectares equivalent to 1295.04 sq. mts. situated in village Sonakpur, in the city and district of Moradabad. MDA was impleaded as the first defendant while the appellant was the second defendant to the suit. The averments in the plaint need to be adverted to at this stage. A person by the name of Zahid Hussain had title over vacant land admeasuring 6960.84 sq. mts in Moradabad. Ceiling case no. 437/5325 (titled State vs. Zahid Hussain) was instituted against him in the Court of the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Moradabad in respect of his lands including the lands comprised in Gata No. 200 admeasuring 1295.04 sq. mts. By an order dated 16 March 1988, the land comprised in Gata No. 200, among other pieces of land, was declared as “surplus” by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (“ULCRA”). Pursuant to the order of the Competent Authority, possession of the land in Gata No. 200 was allegedly handed over by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the MDA. Meanwhile, Zahid Hussain filed a revenue appeal3[ Revenue Appeal No. 23 of 1988] before the District Judge, Moradabad against the order dated 16 March 1988. By an order dated 6 January 1993, the District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the proceedings for reconsideration to the Competent Authority on the basis of an amended Master Plan.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that Zahid Hussain was the erstwhile owner and occupier of lands comprised in Gata No. 200 admeasuring 0.32 acres. Out of the above holding, land admeasuring 0.05 acres (equivalent to 0.0200 hectares or 200 sq. mt.) was acquired by MDA on 30 January 1986 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After the acquisition, Gata No. 200 was divided into two plots:
• Gata No. 200/1 measuring 0.1300 hectares (1300 sq. mt.)
• Gata No. 200/2 measuring 0.2000 hectares (200 sq. mt.)
Zahid Hussain is stated to have become the owner of Gata No. 200/1, while MDA became the owner of Gata No. 200/2. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that after the ceiling case was remanded to the Competent Authority and during its pendency, Zahid Hussain obtained permission to sell the lands situated in Gata No. 200/1 to the first respondent from the Office of the Prescribed Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Moradabad on 5 May 1993. The first respondent claims to have purchased Gata No. 200/1 admeasuring 1295.04 sq. mt. from Zahid Hussain by a registered sale deed dated 22 June 1993. During the pendency of the ceiling case before the Competent Authority, ULCRA was repealed by Act 15 of 1999 (“Repeal Act”). The Competent Authority (City Land Boundary), Moradabad passed an order dated 15 June 2001 dismissing Case No. 437/5325 in view of Section 4 of the Repeal Act which states that proceedings pending before any court, tribunal, or authority shall st
