INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD. versus JAGDISH RAI PURI & OTHER

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1176 · Decided: 03-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1176 
A 
. INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD. 
' 
~ 
v. 
· • · 
· JAG DISH RAI PURI & OTHER 
1 (Civil Appeal Nos. 7934-7935 of 2005) 
; 
I 
,If 
4 
DECEMBE:R 3, 2008 
'• 
: 
• 
• 
• 
> 
' 
' 
8' 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
C.onstftution of India, 1950: 
c 
Article 226 - Writjurisdiction - Exercise of - High Court 
in writ petition directing State Government to accord 
permission to grantee of land to execute sale deed in favour 
of plaintiff-decree-holder in a suit for specific performance of 
contract of sale - HELD: High Court in writ petition should not 
have directed the State Government to grant necessary 
D permission for transfer of land' in favour of plaintiff and should 
not have directed defendant to have executed deed of transfer 
in favour of plaintiff - Judgment of the High Court set aside -
Matter remitted to State Government to decide afresh the 
application seeking permission to transfer the · 1and. 
E 
Union of India & Another vs. Bi/ash Chand Jain & Another 
Civil Appeal Nos. 6387-6390 of 2002 decided on 20th 
November, 2008 reiterated. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
F 
7934-7935 of 2004. 
From the final Order dated 8.10.2004 of the High Court of 
Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) Nos. 7230 and 2551 of 2003. 
WITH 
G C.A. No. 3836 of 2005 
Vinod A. Bobde, Anuradha Dutt, B. Vijayalakshimi Menon, 
Ekta Kapil, Kuber Dewan, Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam 
(for Goodwill lndeevar), Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra, 
H 
1176 
INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD v. JAGDISH RAI PURI & 1177 
ORS. 
Kedar Nath Tripathy, H.P. Sahu and C.R. Panda (for Abhisth 
A 
>- Kumar) for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
1. These Appeals have been filed against the judgment of s 
the Orissa High Court dated 08th October, 2004 passed in Writ 
Petition Nos.7230 of 2003 and 2551 of 2003. 
2. The facts of the case are mentioned in the impugned 
judgment of the High Court in great detail and we need not refer 
to the same except where necessary. 
C 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and. perused the 
record. 
4. It appears that there was an agreement to sell in favour 
of respondent No.1 herein-Jagdish Rai Puri and for specific 0 
performance of the same, a suit was filed which was decreed 
by the High Court in First Appeal No.348 of 1984 on 
.. 
30.08.1994. In that judgment, it was mentioned that the plaintiffs 
suit for specific performance of contract of sale is decreed and 
for executing the sale deed, defendant will seek permission from 
the State Government, as such permission was required as it 
E 
was a government land. The land had been granted to the 
respondent No.2 herein who entered into an agreement to sell 
the land to respondent no.1 ;n these appeals. , 
5. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the said 
permission was refused by the State Government by its order 
F 
~ 
dated 23.5.2003. Against that order, a writ petition was filed 
which has been decided by the impugned judgment. 
6. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment of 
the High Court. While agreeing with the High Court that the order G 
dated 23.5.2003 refusing permission was unsustainable, we 
are of the opinion that the High Court should not have directed 
,, the State Government to grant the necessary permission for 
transfer of the said land in favour of the appellant and should 
not have directed the opposite party No.1 in the said writ petition 
H 
1178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A to have executed the deed of transfer in favour of the appellant. 
~­
Instead, the High Court should have remitted the matter to the 
State Government for deciding the application seeking 
permission to transfer the said land afresh on relevant 
cohsiderations. -
B 
7: 'Recently, in Civil Appeal Nos.6387-6390 of 2002 
decided on 20th November,_ 2008 titled Vnion of India & 
Another vs. Bi/ash Chand Jain & Another, this Court held that .. 
the High Court cannot itself perform the functions which are to 
be performed by some other authority. If that authorify passed 
C an order which the High Court finds is not sustainable in law, 
the High Court can set aside the said order and remit the matter 
to the concerned authority for deciding the same afresh in 
accordance with law, but the High Court should not take over 
the function .of the authority itself . 
.0 
8. We reiterate the views given in the aforesaid decision 
which has referred to the earlier decisions 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.