RAJASTHAN PATRIKA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, in the name and style of Rajasthan Patrika Limited, having its registered office at Kesargarh, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 (J.K. Rastogi) held property comprising land area of 1,033.33 sq. yards, one building on the ground floor, part building on the first floor including roof and some construction on the second floor situated at 11, Hospital Road, Jaipur, known as Krishna Kunj. Respondent No. 4 being desirous of selling the abovesaid property and the petitioner-company being interested to purchase the same, agreed to purchase it for a sale consideration of value of Rs. 25 lakhs and for that purpose entered into an agreement for sale, which was executed on March 7, 1991, and was got registered with the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur-2, Jaipur, on March 7, 1991. THE petitioner-company parted with an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs 50 thousand on March 7, 1991, vide pay order in favour of respondent No. 4 before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the agreement of sale by way of an advance. It is also the case of the petitioner-company that respondent No. 4, as a security against the payment of Rs. 8.50 lakhs, gave the possession of certain portion of the aforesaid property as detailed in Schedule 'A' and the petitioner took possession of the said portion on March 7, 1991, and is in possession of the said portion of the property, about which the sale agreement was entered into and executed. According to the petitioner, the important salient terms of agreement of sale in brief are as under :

(2.) A copy of the agreement dated March 7, 1991, has been annexed with the writ petition as annexure 'A'.

(3.) A reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, i.e., the appropriate authority, on August 30, 1991, and a rejoinder thereto was filed by the petitioner on October 8, 1991. Respondent No. 4, J.K. Rastogi, expired during the pendency of the writ petition on April 16, 1992, and an application for substitution of his legal heirs was filed on June 24, 1992, under Order 22, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, by the petitioner and Shri J.S. Rastogi, advocate, who entered appearance on behalf of the legal representatives of respondent No. 4 has supported the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 through the reply has traversed the petitioner's claim submitting therein, that the provisions of Chapter XX-C are fully constitutional, are neither bad, illegal, arbitrary or violative of the principles of natural justice or unconstitutional and further that it shall be showing the file to prove that there was understatement of consideration as well, that the notice had been issued to comply with the principles of natural justice, that after committing an offence the petitioner cannot get the certificate under Section 269UL(3), the respondent has acted in accordance with law, that the petitioner after committing an offence and transferring the property, could not have submitted an application in Form No. 37-I, that the petitioner is not entitled to any no objection certificate and the petitioner has no enforceable right and is, therefore, not entitled to any relief.