Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Satya Laboratories vs A.L.Gangadhar Rao (D) By Lrs. on 3 December, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8062 OF 2011
M/S. SATHYA LABORATORIES ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
A.L.GANGADHAR RAO (D) BY LRS. ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8063 OF 2011
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14119 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.24198 of 2014)
O R D E R
SLP(C) NO.24198 of 2014 Leave granted.
Civil Appeal Nos.8062 and 8063 Of 2011
1. The delay of 3665 days in filing and 19 days in refiling Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31134 of 2009 in which leave has already been granted and Civil Appeal No.8063 of 2011 has been registred is condoned.
2. Both the Civil Appeals i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.8062 of 2011 and 8063 of 2011 are by the plaintiff/appellant whose suit for specific performance Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sukhbir Paul Kaur Date: 2015.12.08 09:54:54 IST Reason: has been dismissed by the learned trial Court as well as 2 by the High Court by order dated 16.02.1999. The appellant had challenged the said order of the High Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.9270 of 2001 arising out of C.C. No.3033 of 2001, which was answered in the following terms :
“Delay condoned.
Dr. Rajiv Dhawan says that in the facts and circumstances of the case, more appropriate to file an application for review, and as such withdraws the SLP.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
3. Thereafter, the appellant filed review petition No.245 of 2002 before the High Court which was dismissed by order dated 20.02.2008. This order has been challenged in Civil Appeal No.8062 of 2011. Civil Appeal No.8063 of 2011 is against the main order dated 16.02.1999 of the High Court.
4. Yet another case, i.e., Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24198 of 2014 has been filed, which is directed against a subsequent order of the High Court affirming the decree of eviction passed against the appellant by the learned trial Court. 3
5. Though a question as to the maintainability of the present civil appeals has been raised on the ground that the order dated 12.05.2001 does not grant leave to the appellant to come back to this Court after exhausting the review jurisdiction, we do not think that the said point need to detain the Court inasmuch as the order of this Court dated 12.05.2001 discloses that there was no adjudication on the merits of the dispute between the parties. We, therefore, propose to consider the grievances of the appellant in both the appeals and in the connected Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24198 of 2014 on merits.
6. From the order of the High Court dated 16.02.1999 and the review order dated 20.02.2008 it is clear that specific performance of the agreement dated 03.12.1981 was refused primarily on the ground that requisite permission as contemplated in the agreement was not granted by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. In this regard, it must be noticed, at this stage, that the parties are not in dispute with regard to the existence of the agreement; payment of the full amount thereunder; the long possession of the plaintiff and the investment 4 made by the plaintiff in the suit land for the purpose of running an industry.
7. The agreement between the parties contemplated that either the parties could apply for permission to sell/purchase the suit property to the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. There is, however, a clause in the agreement which states that the vendor will register the sale-deed after getting permission from the competent authority. The said clause reads as under :
“The vendor hereby assures that he will register the sale deed in favour of the purchaser/purchasing concern within stipulate time, after getting permission from the competent authority if he fails to do so, he will return the advance amount of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- (Total is Rs.40,000/-) as cost and damages sustained by the purchaser.”
8. It will be necessary to take note of the fact that the suit land was exempted from the provisions of Part-III of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, (for short, “the Act”) by order dated 14.11.1979 of the State Government. The said order, however, imposed a specific requirement of obtaining permission from the State Government for transfer of the land in question. Such permission was required to be obtained by the vendor 5 i.e. defendant/respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the parties are at loggerheads in contending as to who between the buyer and the seller is liable under the agreement to apply for the permission for sale/purchase of the suit land. We do not consider it necessary to go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter as the consequence thereof would not be very relevant inasmuch as it is clear from the Government Order dated 14.11.1979 that prior permission of the Government for sale of the land has to be sought and obtained by the vendor, namely, the defendant/respondent.
10. Exemption under Section 20 of the Act virtually takes the land exempted outside the purview of the Act. This is the effect of the order dated 14.11.1979. Nonetheless, the conditions mentioned in the exemption order, the relevant part of which has already been noticed i.e. requirement of prior permission to sell has to be complied with.
11. Section 26 of the Act contained in Part-IV thereof contemplates giving a notice in writing by a land owner to the competent authority of his intention to transfer the vacant land held within the ceiling limit. 6 Sub-section 2 of Section 26 gives the competent authority the first option to purchase such land on behalf of the State Government, failing which the owner may transfer the land to any other person.
12. Both the provisions of the Act i.e. Section 20 and Section 26 operate in different fields. In the present case the materials on record indicate that the vendor had applied to the competent authority as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act for permission to sell the land which exercise was not at all necessary in view of the fact that the land stood exempted under Section 20 by Government Order dated 14.11.1979.
13. The aforesaid application was refused by the competent authority under the Act on 23.01.1982 on the ground that the land was surplus land. What really was required to be done by the vendor is to seek permission from the State Government in terms of the conditions mentioned in the Government Order dated 14.11.1979. This was not done at all. Subsequently, it appears, that the plaintiff himself applied for permission to the Principal Secretary to the State Government, Urban Development Department for permission. The said request was refused 7 on the ground that as per condition No.3 of the Exemption Order dated 14.11.1979, it was the defendant/respondent (vendor) who was required to apply and who has not so acted.
14. From the above discussion, it transpires that at the relevant point of time no permission from the competent authority under the Act was required as the land stood exempted under Section 20 of the Act. The requirement was one of obtaining permission for sale from the State Government in terms of the Government Order dated 14.11.1979. The vendor i.e. defendant/respondent therefore, did not do what was required under the law and in accordance with the agreement dated 03.12.1981. The Act has since been repealed with effect from 08.07.1999. Upon such repeal, both requirements i.e. permission under the conditions of exemption dated 14.11.1979 as well as notice under Section 26, have become redundant in law.
15. As already observed the existence of the agreement is not in doubt and also full payment of the consideration amount. The plaintiff has been in possession of the land for long and has built up an industry/manufacturing unit thereon. In such 8 circumstances, we are of the view that it is just and equitable to grant the relief of specific performance as prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit. We, therefore, reverse the decree of dismissal as passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the High Court and decree the suit of the plaintiff subject to the condition that the defendant/respondent will execute the required sale-deed only upon payment of an additional amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) which learned counsel for the appellant submits will be so done within a period of three months from today. The above figure of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) has been arrived at on the basis of what had transpired between the parties during the negotiations for settlement, which had eventually failed.
16. The aforesaid amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) will be in addition to any amount already paid or due on account of rent etc. If any such amount is lying in deposit in any Court including this Court, the defendant/respondent shall be entitled to receive the said amount.
9
17. Both the appeals shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14119 OF 2015 @ SLP(C) NO.24198 of 2014 In view of the conclusion reached by us in the connected appeals i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.8062 of 2011 and 8063 of 2011 as aforementioned, no separate order would be required to be passed in the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.24198 of 2014 which will stand disposed of accordingly. The order of the High Court dated 10.06.2014 in R.F.A. No.761 of 2010 impugned therein shall stand set aside.
.................J. (RANJAN GOGOI) .................J. (N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 03, 2015.
10
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.7 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 8062/2011
M/S SATYA LABORATORIES Appellant(s)
VERSUS
A.L.GANGADHAR RAO (D) BY LRS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions)
WITH
C.A. No. 8063/2011
(With appln.(s) for directions and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 24198/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 03/12/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Appellant(s) Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Srikala G.K., Adv.
Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan,Adv. Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale,Adv.
Mr. Krutin R. Joshi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted in SLP(C) No.24198 of 2014.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.11
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Asha Soni)
Sr.P.A. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file.)