Delhi High Court
Smt. Darshana Gupta & Anr. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 26 November, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26th November, 2012
+ LPA No.771/2012
SMT. DARSHANA GUPTA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal & Mr. Pankaj Gupta,
Advs.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit Chander, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW D. MURUGESAN, CHIEF JUSTICE CM No.19727/2012 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.LPA No.771/2012
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 19.11.2012 of the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain W.P.(C) No.7215/2012 preferred by the appellant and relegating the appellant to the statutory remedy of appeal. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant impugning the order dated 12.11.2012 of refusal of 'No Objection Certificate / Permission' for transfer of land, admeasuring 1058 sq. yds. LPA No.771/2012 Page 1 of 5
out of Khasra No.142/778 situated in the extended Lal Dora of village Kanjhawala, Delhi, applied for under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment held that since Section 6 of the Act provides for the remedy of appeal against an order under Section 5 of the Act, the writ petition was not maintainable.
2. The counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice and we have with consent heard the counsels finally on the appeal.
3. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the said Act places restriction on transfer of only those lands which have been acquired or in respect of which acquisition proceedings have been initiated and the competent Authority (under the Act), under Section 5, can refuse permission on the said grounds only and not on any other ground. Inviting attention to the order dated 12.11.2012, it is stated that permission for transfer has been denied not on the ground of the subject land being under acquisition but on the ground of an FIR having been lodged with respect to a dispute as to the title to the said land. It is thus contended that the refusal is not under Section 5 of the Act and thus the LPA No.771/2012 Page 2 of 5 remedy of appeal under Section 6 of the Act is not available. Alternatively, it is argued that the exclusion of writ jurisdiction on the ground of availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute rule and since the order of refusal of permission in the present case is patently illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the competent Authority, it be set aside in writ jurisdiction. It is further urged that the disposal of the appeal will take time. Urgency is shown by pleading that the appellants are the prospective purchaser of the said land and under the Agreement to Sell in their favour, the transferors of the land have imposed the responsibility of obtaining permission on the appellants. It is contended that unless permission is immediately granted, the appellants run the risk of losing the right to purchase the land and also forfeiting their earnest money.
4. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent has opposed the locus of the appellants to challenge the order. It is contended that the appellants are merely the prospective purchasers and the transferors who had sought permission and to whom permission to transfer has been denied have not chosen to challenge the order.
LPA No.771/2012 Page 3 of 5
5. The appellants have not even made the transferors of the land as parties to the writ petition or to this appeal. It is not known whether they are desirous of challenging the refusal. The time for completion of the purchase, as per the copy of the Agreement filed before us, has already lapsed though the counsel for the appellants states that the transferors have extended the said time by another 15 days. He also states that the appellants are in a position to file an affidavit in this Court on behalf of the transferors of their support for the present proceedings.
6. Having considered all the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that rather than adjourning this appeal to enable the appellants to implead the transferors as parties hereto and issue notice to them and / or to await their response, it will be better that the appellants, as directed by the learned Single Judge, avail the remedy of appeal where all the questions in the proper perspective can be gone into. To allay the apprehensions of the appellant of delay, direction can always be issued to the Appellate Authority for expeditious disposal of the appeal.
7. Accordingly, while not interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge, we direct that upon the appeal being filed by the appellants along LPA No.771/2012 Page 4 of 5 with the transferors within one week hereof, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of the filing of the appeal.
The appeal is disposed of. No costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J NOVEMBER 26, 2012 'gsr' LPA No.771/2012 Page 5 of 5