Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

119 Further to deal with the arguments of the learned Advocates that a conditional decree can be passed based on the decisions pertaining to the transactions hit by Section 63 of the Tenancy Act, 1948, we may note that the contentions placed before us are that there is no bar against the Agreement to Sell and the bar under Section 43 is only against the completed sale. Such agreement which contains averment upon vendor satisfying certain conditions can be specifically enforced by the Civil Court by passing a conditional decree that the transaction would be complete only on satisfying the said conditions. Much emphasis has been laid upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ferrodous Estate (Private) Limited (supra) to substantiate the said point. It was argued that in the said case, the Apex Court has held that in a suit for specific performance, the agreement to Sell which contains a specific clause wherein vendor is mandated to obtain permission from the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Ceiling Act, is to be enforced by the Civil Court. It was held there that it was incumbent upon the vendors to have obtained the Urban Land Ceiling permission to sell the land that was within their ceiling limit, which they failed to do. It was noted that NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/449/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined the Full Bench of the Madras High Court had itself recognized that there may be an agreement with such clause, in which case it is the Court's duty to enforce such clause. It was held therein that the agreement to Sell cannot be said to be void ab initio, the conditional decree for specific performance can be passed in such cases.

Ramesh Chaturbhai (supra):-
"20. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shah Jitendra Nanalal {1985 GLH 53} [supra], relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.B. Vakil for the petitioners, was in a different context and under the statutory provisions of Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Act,1976 whether right to claim exemption under section 20 of the ULC Act was available to the holder of the excess vacant land. In the above decision, agreement to sell certain land was executed on 4.7.1966 and further agreement was entered into on NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/449/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined 1.7.1967 and the civil suit, being Civil Suit No.1915 of 1970, was filed while another suit filed by the defendants as the plaintiffs being Civil Suit No.2063 of 1969 was compromised between the parties thereto and, on the basis of the settlement, a decree was passed on 5.7.1972. Subsequent to institution of the suit, Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas [Prohibition of Alienation] Act,1972 came into force which later on ceased to operate in its place on the advent of Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Act, 1976. Further, right to claim exemption by the owner of the land under the ULC Act continued until vesting under section 10(3) of the ULC Act and, therefore, a conditional decree for specific performance subject to exemption being obtained under section 20 of the ULC Act was held to be permissible. In the facts of the case, transfer/alienation of tenure land viz. a land given to a tenant by the Government under various provisions of Tenancy Act to the tiller of the land, subject to restriction of Section 43 of the Act, is clearly impermissible without previous sanction of the Collector/Competent Authority, therefore, the law laid down by the Full Bench in Jitendra Nanalal [supra] is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Hasvantbhai (supra)
45. I may now refer to one another decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in which the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jitendra Nanalal Shah (supra) has been referred to and discussed. In the case of Rameshbhai Chaturbhai Prajapati (supra). The issue before the learned Single Judge revolved aroundbthe nonirrigated agricultural lands which originally belonged to a Charitable Trust. One Rasiklal Tilakram Jaiswal was declared as a tenant of the said land by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. in the tenancy proceedings. By virtue of such declaration, Rasiklal became the deemed purchaser thereof and the same was confirmed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, thereafter by this Court and by the Apex Court. The respondents Nos.1 to 8 before the learned Single Judge preferred four suits against the petitioners and the respondents Nos.9 to 11 for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 14th October 1999 in respect of the plot Nos.1 to 4 were not binding on the plaintiffs and for a declaration that the petitioners were not entitled to demand from the respondents Nos.10 and 11 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/449/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined any building permission and further to restrain them from dealing, plotting, alienating, allotment, etc. of the land in question. In the pending suits, a compromise was arrived at between the petitioners and the respondents Nos.1 to 8 and the same was reduced into writing. It appears that the Trial Court declined to accept such compromise and pass a consent decree on the premise that such compromise was in violation of the provisions or restrictions under Section 43 of the Act and no consent decree could be passed on such a invalid settlement. Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued that the parties can enter into a contract for transfer of land and the Court can pass a conditional decree for specific performance subject to the sanction being obtained.
"20. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shah Jitendra Nanalal {1985 GLH 53} [supra], relied upon by learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.B. Vakil for the petitioners, was in a different context and under the statutory provisions of Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Act,1976 whether right to claim exemption under section 20 of the ULC Act was available to the holder of the excess vacant land. In the above decision, agreement to sell certain land was executed on 4.7.1966 and further agreement was entered into on 1.7.1967 and the civil suit, being Civil Suit No.1915 of 1970, was filed while another suit filed by the defendants as the plaintiffs being Civil Suit No.2063 of 1969 was compromised between the parties thereto and, on the basis of the settlement, a decree was passed on 5.7.1972. Subsequent to institution of the suit, Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas [Prohibition of Alienation] Act,1972 came into force which later on ceased to operate in its place on the advent of Urban Land [Ceiling and Regulation] Act, 1976. Further, right to claim exemption by the owner of the land under the ULC Act continued until vesting under section 10(3) of the ULC Act and, therefore, a conditional decree for specific performance subject to exemption being obtained under section 20 of the ULC Act was held to be permissible. In the facts of the case, transfer/alienation of tenure land viz. a NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/449/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined land given to a tenant by the Government under various provisions of Tenancy Act to the tiller of the land, subject to restriction of Section 43 of the Act, is clearly impermissible without previous sanction of the Collector/Competent Authority, therefore, the law laid down by the Full Bench in Jitendra Nanalal [supra] is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.