9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1112 - SC - Indian LawsAuction conducted by Moradabad Development Authority (MDA) in respect of the land - auction purchaser who purchased the suit land from the MDA - transferable owner and cultivator of lands - respondent challenged the auction proceedings in the suit on the ground that MDA had title only over the land measuring 200 sq. mt. of the auctioned land, and thus the sale of the remaining land measuring 400 sq. mt. was null and void - HELD THAT - There is a specific finding of fact in the judgment of the Trial Court that the permission which was issued on 5 May 1993 to Zahid Hussain for the transfer of 1295.04 sq mt of land was in modification of an earlier order dated 29 March 1993. The permission was in respect of the 2000 sq. mt of land which was retained by Zahid Hussain. The High Court has not adverted to this finding of fact at all nor has it found any substantive basis to displace the finding. That apart, it is evident, that the order of the Competent Authority dated 16 March 1988 was set aside in appeal by the District Judge on 6 January 1993 and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication of the excess land in view of the amended Master Plan. In such an instance, when the case was remanded, Zahid Hussain could not have transferred the suit property, having regard to the clear bar which is contained in the provisions of Section 5(3). No transfer of the land could have been lawfully made and any such transfer in contravention with the provision would be null and void. The effect of the amendment was considered in Banarsi Ors. v. Ram Phal 2003 (2) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT , where this Court held that after the 1976 amendment, the respondent could file cross-objections against the findings of the lower court, while previously cross-objections could only be filed when the decree of the lower court was partly against the respondent. On a perusal of the above authorities, it is evident that the principle stipulated in Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC can be applied to petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution because of this Court s wide powers to do justice under Article 142 of the Constitution. Since the principle in Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC furthers the cause of justice by providing the party other than the 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 - it is thus established that it is not necessary that a challenge to the adverse findings of the lower court needs to be made in the form of a memorandum of cross-objection. In the present case, it is noted that the appellant had raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court for entertaining the suit on the ground that an injunction and declaratory relief could not have been given. Although the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of the appellant, it had decided against the appellant on the question of jurisdiction. This finding was not challenged by the appellant before the High Court in the form of a memorandum of cross-objection. The judgment of the High Court makes no mention that a plea of lack of jurisdiction was taken by either the appellant or the MDA. Before this Court, the appellant has not filed the counter-affidavit it had filed before the High Court. Both the High Court and Trial Court have failed to correctly assess the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court to try a suit, which in its essence, arises out of matters pertaining to the ULCRA. The first respondent has made efforts to artfully draft the plaint in a manner that would make it appear as if the issue only pertains to the auction notice issued by MDA. This Court, has time and again, warned against drafting of this nature which seeks to distract attention away from the real cause of action - The findings of the High Court are a non-sequitur since even if Zahid Hussain had title and possession of the suit land at the time of transfer, the purported transfer to the first respondent is null and void. The High Court ought to have upheld the dismissal of the suit on this ground. A plaintiff has to stand on their own legs and the respondent plaintiff had no valid title or interest in law on the basis of which the suit could have been founded. The respondent plaintiff had no cause of action to challenge the auction by MDA in favour of the appellant, once the purported transfer was invalid. The purported transfer of the suit land by Zahid Hussain to the first respondent was before the Repeal Act was enacted. The dual conditions stipulated under Section 5(3) of ULCRA were not fulfilled before the transfer was made since the statement under Section 6 had not been submitted and the Competent Authority had not issued a notification under Section 10(1) of the ULCRA (which was in operation at the time). Therefore, even if the Zahid Hussain had the title to the suit land, the transfer to the first respondent was null and void under section 5(3) of ULCRA - the suit is dismissed. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and possession of the disputed land. 2. Legality of the auction proceedings conducted by Moradabad Development Authority (MDA). 3. Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit. 4. Validity of the sale deed executed by Zahid Hussain in favor of the first respondent. 5. Compliance with the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA) provisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership and Possession of the Disputed Land: The first respondent claimed ownership of the land (Gata No. 200/1) based on a sale deed executed by Zahid Hussain. The Trial Court found that the MDA lawfully possessed the land since 31 July 1992, and thus, the sale deed executed by Zahid Hussain on 22 June 1993 was invalid. The High Court, however, ruled that the possession letter dated 31 July 1992 was merely a "paper possession" and not "actual physical possession," thus maintaining Zahid Hussain's ownership. 2. Legality of the Auction Proceedings Conducted by MDA: The first respondent challenged the auction on the grounds that MDA only had title over 200 sq. mt. of the land, and the sale of the remaining 400 sq. mt. was null and void. The Trial Court upheld the auction, stating MDA was the lawful owner. The High Court reversed this, holding the auction invalid due to the lack of actual possession by MDA and the remand order by the District Judge, which nullified the earlier surplus land declaration. 3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Entertain the Suit: The appellant argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction as the suit essentially challenged ULCRA proceedings. The Trial Court rejected this, maintaining the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was within its jurisdiction. The High Court did not address this jurisdictional issue. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by ULCRA, as the suit's core issue pertained to land ceiling proceedings. 4. Validity of the Sale Deed Executed by Zahid Hussain: The sale deed dated 22 June 1993 was found void by the Trial Court since Zahid Hussain could not transfer land under adjudication by the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling. The High Court's ruling did not address this void status adequately. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the sale deed's invalidity, noting the transfer contravened Section 5(3) of ULCRA, which prohibits such transfers without a statement under Section 6 and a notification under Section 10(1). 5. Compliance with ULCRA Provisions: The Trial Court found that possession of the land was transferred to MDA before the Repeal Act, making the transfer to the first respondent void. The High Court held that the possession was not actual but merely on paper, thus invalidating MDA's claim. The Supreme Court emphasized that the dual requirements under Section 5(3) of ULCRA were not met, rendering any transfer by Zahid Hussain null and void. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the suit instituted by the first respondent. The Court held that: - The sale deed executed by Zahid Hussain was void under ULCRA. - The civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it essentially challenged ULCRA proceedings. - The High Court's findings on possession and title were incorrect. The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of Rupees fifty thousand to the appellant.
|
