PANKAJ MITHAL, J. - (1.) IN this second appeal the Court has been called upon to answer as to whether previous approval of the Assistant Collector con­cerned is necessary before effecting any transfer of a bhumidhari land by a Sched­uled Caste person in favour of another Scheduled Caste person as contemplated by Section 157-AA of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An ancillary point with regard to exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and interference with such discretion by the lower appellate Court also arises for determination.
(2.) IT is said that the defendant/appellant Tilak Ram executed an agreement dated 7.6.05 to transfer his land of Khasra No. 13 Minjumla area 0.405 hectare situate in village Govindpuri, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut, in favour of plaintiff/respondent Chhater Pal Singh. According to agreement the total sale consideration agreed upon happens to be Rs.1 lac out of which Rs. 30, 000/-was paid and the balance was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed. Admittedly, both the parties to the agreement are Scheduled Caste persons. The plaintiff/respondent on the basis of the aforesaid agreement instituted a suit for specific performance alleging that he was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed but the defendant/appellant failed to perform his part of the agreement. The suit was decreed in part by the Court of first instance for the relief of refund of earnest money of Rs. 30, 000/- with 6% interest within a period of 30 days of the decree. The decree of specific performance was refused on the ground that for the purposes of making transfer of the land by a Scheduled Caste, permission of the District Collector/Assistant Collector is necessary and since it is not certain that such permission would be granted, there is no justifica­tion to grant the decree for specific performance. The execution of the agreement, payment of earnest money and the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff/respondent to perform his part of the agreement was held to be proved. However, not being satisfied, the plaintiff/respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 14.5.08 and a decree of specific performance in favourof the plaintiff/respondent has also been granted. Thus, the defendant/appellant has come up in this sec­ond appeal against the decree of specific performance passed by the lower ap­pellate Court.
(3.) I have heard Sri Murlidhar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R.P. Singh for defendant/appellant and Sri B.N. Agarwal along with Sri Sarttosh Kumar Srivastava for plaintiff/respondent on the above substantial question of law. Parties have agreed and consented for the final disposal of the appeal at the stage of admis­sion itself.;