STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus PRAVIN JETHALAL KAMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 07-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
PRA VIN JETHALAL KAMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS. 
MARCH7, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 : Section 27(1). 
Landowner-Agreement of sale by-Property within ceiling limit-Per-
mission under section 27( 1) sought by landowner-Refusal by State Govern-
ment-State instead exercising right of pre-emption-Consequently order passed 
by competent authority to buy the landowner's property-Pursuant to said 
order sale deed obtained from landowner and possession of land taken by State 
Government-Suit filed by landowner for declaration and possession-limita-
tion period and maintainability of-Held order of competent authority was void 
ab initio-Sale deed executed pursuant thereto was consequently null and 
void-Held period of limitation applicable to suit was 12 years as prescribed 
in Article 65 of the Limitation Act-Held no separate claim for declaration was 
necessary-Filing of suit for declaration by landowner was not signijicant-
Held on facts there was no equitable consideration against the landowl]!!r. 
E 
Limitation Act, 1963 : 
Articles 65 and 58-Applicability of 
The respondent-plaintiff, owner of suit property, entered into an 
agreement of sale with his relations and acquaintances for a consideration 
F 
of Rs. 2,60,000. His application for grant of permission under S.27(1) of 
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was rejected by the 
competent authority. Instead the competent authority passed an order 
dated 26th May, 1976 exerdsing its right of pre-emption with a view to 
buying the property on behalf of the State. The respondent-plaintiff was 
G 
offered the same consideration which was to be paid to him by the prospec-
tive purchaser. Consequently a sale deed dated 23rd August, 1976 was 
obtained from the respo~dent and possession of land was also taken by 
State Government. 
On 22nd August, 1988 the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for decla-
H 
ration and possession claiming that as the suit property was within the 
134 
.. 
ST ATE v. PRA VIN JETHALAL KAMDAR 
135 
ceiling limit the order 26th May, 1976 and the sale deed executed pursuant 
thereto on 23rd August 1976 were null and void and thus conferred no 
right of ownership on State. He relied on the decision of the Supreme 
Court in Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India & Ors., [1981] 1 
SCC 166 wherein section 27(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regula-
tion) Act, 1976 was held invalid to the extent it sought to affect the right of 
a person to dispose of his urban property within the ceiling limit. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the High Court re-
versed the decision of the trial court and passed a decree for possession in 
favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The High Court held that (i) the order 
A 
B 
of competent authority dated 26th May, 1976 and the sale deed dated 23rd 
C 
August, 1976 being null and void have no existence in the eyes of law; (ii) 
the plea about the invalidity of these documents can be raised in any 
proceedings and no separate declaration was necessary to be sought; and 
(iii) suit was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not by 
Article 58. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the State that 
(i) the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was time barred because under 
Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation prescribed 
for a suit for declaration was three years; (ii) the respondent was not ,-
entitled to equitable relief because he accepted the sale consideration and 
executed the sale deed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : .1. The contention that the suit was time barred has no merit. 
D 
E 
The suit has been rightly held to have been filed within the period pre-
F 
scribed by the Limitation Act. In Bhim Singh's case* S.27(1) of the Urban 
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 insofar as it imposes a restriction on 
transfer of any urban or urbanisable land with a building or a portion of 
such building, which is within the ceiling area, has been held to be invalid. 
Thus, it cannot be disputed that the order dated 26th May, 1976, was 
without jurisdiction and nullity. Consequel)tly, sale deed executed pursu~. · · G 
ant to the said order would also be a nullity. It was not necessary to seek ft. 
declaration about the invalidity of the said order and the sale deed. Th~ 1 
fact of plaintiff having sought such a declaration is of no 

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