SHRI SAURAV JAIN & ANR. versus M/S A. B. P. DESIGN & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 1020 · Decided: 05-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
SHRI SAURAV JAIN & ANR.
v.
M/S A. B. P. DESIGN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4448 of 2021)
AUGUST 5, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M R SHAH, JJ.]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976:
ss. 5(3), 10(1), 27 – Transfer of vacant land – Validity of –
On facts, first respondent claiming to be a transferable owner and
cultivator of certain lands filed a suit for declaration that the auction
of said lands by the Development Authority was illegal and void;
that the first respondent is the exclusive owner and occupier of the
suit lands; and sought permanent injunction from dispossessing the
first respondent – Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the
Development Authority was lawful owner of the land and the auction
was valid – Trial court held that the suit land was of the erstwhile
owner, which was declared surplus and was handed over to the
Development Authority, and whereas the erstwhile owner had
allegedly sold the land to the first respondent – In appeal, the High
Court set aside the order of the trial court holding that the auction
conducted by the Development Authority in respect of the suit land
is null and void, wherein the appellant was the auction purchaser
of the suit land from the Development Authority; restrained the
appellant and the Development Authority  from interfering with the
possession of the first respondent over the land – On appeal, held:
Purported transfer of the suit land by erstwhile owner to the first
respondent was before the Repeal Act was enacted – Dual conditions
stipulated u/s. 5(3) were not fulfilled before the transfer was made
since the statement u/s. 6 had not been submitted and the Competent
Authority had not issued a notification u/s. 10(1) – Thus, even if the
erstwhile owner had the title to the suit land, the transfer to the first
respondent was null and void u/s. 5(3) – Furthermore, when the
erstwhile owner had filed a declaration seeking permission for
transfer of the suit land, the permission u/s. 27 was not granted
since there was a pending suit concerning the said land – He then
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1020
1020
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1021
filed another application seeking permission to transfer half of his
‘retainable’ land – Permission that was granted u/s. 27 by the Office
of the Competent Authority was for the transfer of lands from his
‘retainable’ property and not the suit land – Thus, the order of the
High Court is set aside – Suit instituted by the first respondent
dismissed.
Matter pertaining to ceiling proceedings – Jurisdiction of civil
court to entertain the suit – Exclusion of – On facts, first respondent
sought a declaration in regard to the legality of the auction conducted
by the Development Authority and the injunction – Plea that the
purpose of the suit was to impugn the validity of proceedings under
ULCRA – Held: ULCRA impliedly excludes the jurisdiction of the
civil court on matters arising out of the ceiling proceedings – First
respondent artfully drafted the plaint to challenge the validity of
the auction and sought an injunction and declaration, when the
substantive cause of action of the suit arises out of the land ceiling
proceedings – Real object and purpose of the suit, in the guise or
pretext of challenging the auction notice by the Development
Authority was to affirm the title of the first respondent on the basis
of an alleged permission obtained for the sale of the property – By
a process of engineered drafting, the first respondent sought no
reliefs in regard to the proceedings under the ULCRA (to obviate a
bar to the maintainability of the suit) and did not implead either the
State or the Competent Authority who would have been in a position
to answer the challenge – Courts below 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
– This Court, has warned against drafting of this nature which seeks
to distract attention away from the real cause of action – Thus, the
jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit instituted by the
first respondent was barred – Judicial deprecation.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Ord. XLI r. 22 – Filing of cross-objections – Explained.
Ord. XLI r. 22 – Plea that a party, in whose favour the civil
court has decreed a suit, can raise arguments against findings
without having to file a cross-objection, in the appeal – Held: Only
when a part 

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