INDRA PRASAD SAXENA Vs. CHAMAN LAL MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's suit for specific performance of contract of sale is dismissed by the Court below vide its judgment and decree dated 23-11-1984. The appellant has come up with an appeal against the said judgment and decree.

(2.) From the facts of the case it is revealed that an agreement of sale was executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant for sale of 200 sq. yards of land in consideration of Rs. 12,000.00 Rs. 1,000.00 is said to have been paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and balance was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. According to the stipulations contained in the agreement respondent was to apply within one week for permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act of 1976 for transfer of the land. After the permission was granted sale deed was to be executed within two months by the defendant. It is contended by the appellant that the defendant did not apply within one week for the permission but he submitted an incomplete application much after to the concerned authorities. Said application was rejected and information of the same was conveyed to the appellant on 26-12-1982. The order rejecting the application filed by the respondent is placed on the record of the trial Court. By this order the competent authority had informed respondent that he had not given the proof in support of the application whereby notice of sale was given. Therefore, issuance of notice by the respondent was not competent. Under the provisions of Ceiling Act respondent had to give notice in writing of the intended transfer to the competent authority. The purpose of issuing the said notice is to give option of purchase of land to the State Government at a price calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or on any other corresponding law for the time being in force and on receipt of the notice if the option is not exercised by the authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice it is to be presumed that the competent authority has no intention to purchase the said land on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful for the said person to transfer the land to whomsoever he may like. Bar created by S. 26 for transfer of vacant land can be relaxed if notice is given for the transfer of land and thereafter option is not exercised by the State Government to purchase the land within 60 days of the notice. Along with the notice the person intending to transfer the land has to give details of the intending purchaser and his address etc. in the form which is part of the Act.

(3.) The respondent in this case therefore had to make a complete application within one week to the competent authority. The notice which was to be given to the competent authority was to be complete in every respect and completion of the notice and its submission to the competent authority within one week from the date of execution of the agreement was the responsibility of the respondent. There is an express covenant to this effect in the agreement dated 26-9-1980. The notice is said to have been given by the respondent to the competent authority after a few months from the date of execution of the agreement and that notice was incomplete. There has been some exchange of notices between the parties on the subject of issuance of notice under S. 26 of the Ceiling Act. However, the relevant notice which is said to have been given by the respondent to the plaintiff is dated 27-1-1981. The respondent in this notice had said that he had written two letters to the appellant which were not replied by the appellant and the appellant was asked to give full and complete details of his sons and of the land possessed by him and his family members so that respondent is able to issue a notice under S. 26 of the Act. After the order of the competent authority respondent had a remedy under S. 33 of the Act to file an appeal to such authority as was prescribed. The said appeal was to be decided by the competent authority after hearing the other side. No appeal was filed by the respondent against the order rejecting his notice for want of details. Neither was fresh application filed by the respondent with complete details which he had to obtain from the appellant. The appellant is said to have informed the respondent that he was willing to help him before the competent authority and if his help was needed he was willing to file an affidavit also. After the efforts made by the appellant to persuade the respondent to execute the sale deed and obtain permission had filed a suit for specific performance was filed by the appellant.