9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order dated 26th May, 1976 and sale deed dated 23rd August, 1976 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 and Article 65. 3. Equitable relief in case of an illegal order and possession of property. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the order and sale deed The respondent filed a suit seeking a declaration that the order exercising pre-emption rights and the subsequent sale deed were null and void under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The plaintiff claimed that the order and sale deed were illegal as they involved property within the ceiling limit. The High Court reversed the trial court's decision, granting possession to the plaintiff. The State of Maharashtra appealed against this decision, arguing that the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court held that the suit for possession was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, considering the documents as null and void. The Supreme Court agreed that the order and sale deed were without jurisdiction, making them nullities, and upheld the decision that the suit was filed within the prescribed period. Issue 2: Applicability of Limitation Act The State Government contended that the suit was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, as the plaintiff sought a declaration of the order and sale deed's invalidity. However, the High Court rejected this argument, applying Article 65 for possession based on title. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that when documents are null and void, a suit for possession can be filed within 12 years, as per Article 65, even without seeking a separate declaration of their invalidity. Issue 3: Equitable relief The State argued that the plaintiff, despite the order being declared unconstitutional, should not be entitled to equitable relief as he accepted the sale consideration and executed the deed. Citing the Mafatlal Industries case, the State claimed that equitable considerations should not apply. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the plaintiff suffered prejudice due to the illegal order, and equitable relief was warranted. The Court noted that the plaintiff did not voluntarily sell the property and had to execute the deed under an illegal order, justifying the grant of possession by the High Court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to grant possession to the plaintiff, considering the nullity of the order and sale deed, and recognizing the equitable considerations in the case.
|
