LexCHANDA C. KADAM & ORS. versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 663 CHANDA C. KADAM & ORS. v. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) N0.16786 OF 2013 NOVEMBER 01, 2013 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] A 8 Urban Development - Creation of partnership C (Developers) Firm - As per the terms of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) one of the partners (predecessor of the petitioners) was required to give 42,669.40 sq. mtrs. of land to the firm, for development - Out of the total land, 20903 sq. mfr. Of land given to him on perpetual lease with Floor Space D Index (FSI) measuring 37865 sq. ft. which he was entitled to retain - Competent authority granted 'No objection Certificate' and 'Occupation Certificate' in respect of the entire land given on perpetual lease - Objection of petitioners to the grant of certificates - Held: Terms of the MOU entitled the petitioners E to retain certain area out of the total land - Therefore neither the developers nor the retainers were entitled to claim the entire land - Hence 'No Objection Certificate' and 'Occupation Certificate' granted in favour of the developers is held valid - But the same shall not be valid or operative for the area of F 37865 sq. ft. retained by the petitioners - Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. Petitioners' predecessor entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, whereby a Partnership firm (respondent No.3) was G constituted. As per the MOU the petitioners' predecessor was to bring in the plot of land admeasuring 42,669.40 sq. mtrs. For a total consideration of Rs. 2.40 crores, 663 H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A which he was to receive in instalments. Pursuant to the MOU, respondent Nos.3 to 6 were entitled to development and construction on a part of the plot of land measuring 21766 sq. mtrs. Another part of the plot measuring 20903 sq. mtrs. was to be leased for a period of 999 years B constituting lease in perpetuity by respondent No.3 - Firm in favour of the petitioners' predecessor with the Floor Space Index (FXI) measuring 37,865 sq. ft. The structures existing thereon continued to exist. As.per the MOU, in respect of the leased area, the petitioners' c predecessor would have exclusive and uninterrupted right. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 took power of Attorney from the petitioners' predecessor. By using Power of Attorney, respondent No.6 obtained Commencement Certificate u/ s.8(4) of Urban Land Ceiling Act. The petitioners (the legal 0 heirs), filed a suit challenging the MOU/Deed of Partnership alleging fraud at the instance of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The respondent-developers, thereafter sought formal permission from respondent No.1 u/s.22 of Urban Land E Ceiling Act. Respondent No.2 granted 'Occupation Certificate'. The petitioner filed writ petitions, challenging the permission granted u/s. 22 and the grant of 'Occupation Certificate'. The High Court directed the State to consider whether any action was required in respect F of the permission granted u/s.22. Further the matter was pursued by the petitioner to the Chief Minister, who directed cancellation of the 'Occupation Certificate'. The Land Ceiling Act was repealed and all the G proceedings under the Act abated. Therefore, the respondent-developers pursued the matter again and respondent No. issued 'No Objection Certificate'. Respondent No.2 then restored the 'Occupation Certificate' earlier granted. The petitioner challenged the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' and restoration of H CHANDA C. KADAM v. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR & 665 COMPETENT AUTHORITY 'Occupation Certificate' by filing writ petition, which was A dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present petition. Partly allowing the petition, the Court B HELD: 1. Although an administrative authority including Municipal Corporation while granting Occupancy Certificate after completion of the project discharges administrative function and may not be duty bound to examine the title of the contesting parties, it is certainly expected to examine the documents of title or MOU while granting such certificate specially when the C matter is remitted to them for examining the correctness and validity of such occupancy certificate. In the process, it is surely not expected to adjudicate and determine the question of title of the contesting parties but is certainly obliged to form an opinion prima
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.