NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) versus ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANIZATION & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 10-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 1 
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
(NOIDA) 
v. 
ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANIZATION & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3625 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH. BEDI, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property: 
Transfer of land cum super-structure - Land allotted by 
NO/DA to respondent-societies pursuant to execution of lease 
deed - Super-structure built on the land - Notices issued by 
NO/DA directing individual members of the housing societies 
A 
B 
c 
to execute tripartite deeds with the housing societies, as the D 
lessee, and NO/DA, as the lessor, for sale of the super-
structure - Propriety of - Held: Proper -
The impugned 
notices postulating the execution of tripartite deeds flow not 
only from the clauses of the lease deed but also from the 
supervisory authority placed on NO/DA by virtue of the 
provisions of s. 7 of the Act - Transfer of the land cum super-
E 
structure would be by way of a sub-lease from the lessor i.e. 
NO/DA to the lessee (respondents-housing societies) to the 
sub-lessees who are the individual al/ottees, by way of a 
stamped and registered document - Uttar Pradesh Industrial 
Development Act, 1976 - ss. 7 and 14. 
F 
Registration Act, 1908- ss.17(1)(d) and 49 - Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 - s. 107 - Payment of stamp duty on lease 
- Lease deed I sub-lease of immovable property - Held: Is 
compulsorily registerable u/s.17(1)(d) of the Registration Act G 
ands. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act - In absence of such 
a document, s. 49 of the Registration Act visualizes no legal 
effect or an effective transfer by way of a lease or sub-lease. 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Land was allotted by New Okhla Industrial 
Development Area (NOIDA) to respondents-housing 
societies pursuant to execution of a lease deed by and 
between them. The respondents-housing societies filed 
writ petition challenging the letters/notices by which 
B NOIDA had directed the individual members of the 
housing societies to execute tripartite deeds, the other 
two parties being the Housing Societies, as the lessee, 
and NOIDA, as the lessor, for sale of the super-structure 
built on the land allotted by NOIDA to these Societies, and 
c for further restraining the State Government, NOIDA etc. 
from charging any stamp duty on the execution of the 
deeds. 
The respondents pleaded that the super-structure on 
the land allotted by NOIDA had been built solely on the 
D contributions made by the individual members; that the 
Societies being the lessees of the land in question were 
not the owners of the super-structure so as to bind the 
individual members to the covenants that had been 
subscribed to by the Societies with NOIDA the lessor and 
E further that NOIDA had not contributed anything towards 
the cost of construction of the super-structures. 
The writ petition was allowed by the High Court 
primarily on the ground that the lease. deed referred only 
F to the transfer of the land and there was no reference 
whatsoever that the building constructed thereon at a 
later stage would also be treated to have been demised 
by the lessor; that the allottee members, as owners of the 
flats/apartments, built from the contributions made by 
G them could not be compelled to purchase it from the 
society and that such a transfer will be fictitious and 
involuntary, and thus a void transaction under the Indian 
Contract Act. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the 
impugned notices issued by NOIDA directing the 
H 
N.0.1.D.A. v. ARMY WELFARE HOUSING 
3 
ORGANIZATION 
respondents to enter into the tripartite deeds and 
A 
restrained NOIDA from compelling the respondents to 
execute the tripartite sale deed of super structure of flat 
and sub lease deed of land, and from requiring payment 
of any stamp duty and registration fees on such 
documents. 
B 
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the connected 
writ petitions, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The lease deed executed between NOIDA 
and respondent-societies, which is for a period of 99 
C 
years, itself indicates that the lessees had agreed to the 
allotment of the land on lease for the purpose of 
constructing residential buildings for its members. A 
perusal of the clauses of the lease deed would reveal the 
vr;ry starkly patent fact that most of the covenants place 
D 
ohligations on the lessees as well as on the sub-lessees 
and if the covenants are in any manner violated, the lease 
would be liable for forfeiture 

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