M. MEENAKSHI AND ORS. versus METADIN AGARWAL(D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 29-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M. MEENAKSHI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
METADIN AGARWAL(D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 20-Excess land of defendants vesting 
with the government by virtue of Land Ceiling Act-During pendency of 
proceedings, defendants entering into agreement to sell a portion of vacant C 
land subject to sanction by competent authority-Sanction not granted-
Plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract-Held: Plaintiff cannot 
seek specific pe1formance of contract as defendants could not pe1form their 
part of contract in the absence of sanction-Plaintiff only entitled to refund 
of advance money along with damages-Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) 
Act, 1976. 
D 
Order-Void order-Challenge to-Held: Can only be set aside by a 
competent court of law in appropriate proceedings-Void order is necessarily 
not non-est-It cannot be declared to be void in a collateral proceeding. 
Jurisdiction-Discretionary jurisdiction-Exercised by the courts E 
be/ow-Scope of interference by appellate Court in Letters Patent appeal. 
By virtue of proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling & 
Regulation) Act, 1976, excess land owned by the defendant and his other co-
owners were directed to be vested in the Central Government. They were 
allowed to retain only 1000 sq. metres of land each. Defendant entered into F 
an agreement with the Plaintiff to sell the land allotted to him. As on the said 
date, proceedings unde.r the 1976 Act were pending, the agreement to sell 
was subject to the grant of permission by the competent authority under the 
said Act. The defendant filed application under Section 26 of the 1976 Act 
for seeking permission to sell the said land, which was rejected by the G 
competent authority. 
The plaintiff thereafter filed suit for specific performance of contract. 
The Trial Court decreed the suit in part. While rejecting the prayer for grant 
of specific performance of contract, the Trial Court directed the defendant to 
505 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A refund the amount of advance as also pay damages. The Single Judge of High 
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. However, the Division Bench 
of High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the plaintiff. 
In appeals to this Court, the questions which have arisen for 
consideration are: whether in the absence of sanction by the competent 
B authority, defendant could execute the deed of sale in favour of any person; 
whether the Division Bench of High Court erred in going into the question of 
validity of orders of competent authority for the first time in Letters Patent 
appeal and also in interfering with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised 
by the Trial Judge and the Single Judge of High Court under Section 20 of 
C the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The parties to the agreement were aware of the proceedings 
pending before the ceiling authorities. The agreement envisaged that the 
D Defendant would obtain necessary sanction from the competent authority. The 
competent authority had refused to grant sanction on the ground that 1000 
sq. metres of vacant lands which had been the subject-matter of agreement 
were not available, in view of the fact that the Defendant and their co-sharers 
were permitted to retain only their residential houses and the lands 
appurtenant thereto. It was, therefore, not a case where a notice under Section 
E 26 of the 1976 Act could have served the purpose and in the event, the 
competent authority did not exercise its statutory right of perception within 
the period stipulated thereunder, the Defendant was free to execute a deed of 
sale in favour of any person he liked. [511-F; 516-A-Cf 
HPA International etc. v. Bhagwandas Fatehchand Daswani and Ors. 
F etc., [200416 sec 537, referred to. 
New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd v. Scoiete Des Ateliers Et. Chantiers 
De France, (1918-19) AER 552, referred to. 
I.2. The plaintiffs had annexed a plan, from a perusal whereof it appears 
G that six co-sharers were allotted 6000 sq. metres of lands - four in one block 
and two in another, apart from their house properties situate on the eastern 
side of the said road. By the deed of sale, all the six co-sharers have sold 
portions of their house properties and lands appurtenant thereto. The total 
land sold to the purchasers by all the six co-sharers was below 900 sq. metres. 
H No v

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