Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUKHTAR AHMAD ANSARI versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari v. Executive Engineer U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 26657 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3291 (21 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26657 of 2005

Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari                                                          ..................Petitioner

Vs.

Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas

Evam Vikas Parishad Allahabad and others

                          ......................Respondents

AND

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36452 of 2004

Sohrab Ali and another                                                         .................Petitioners

Vs.

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad  Lucknow

and others                                                                               ............Respondents

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

We have heard both the sides. Both of these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

It appears that certain land of the petitioners was acquired by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and possession was also taken. Thereafter, the petitioners moved a misconceived representation before the Housing Board for release/adjustment of that land.

The representation has been disposed of by an equally misconceived order saying that the land can be adjusted on payment of better charges.

The law is well settled that once the land has been acquired and possession has been taken, the title of the land will stand vested in the Housing Board and title of this land of which Housing Board becomes the owner, can thereafter be transferred only by a registered instrument. There is no concept of "adjustment" or "release" after possession has been taken. Therefore, seeking release or adjustment or permitting release or adjustment on payment of any kind of betterment charges is misconceived on the part of the petitioners as well as the respondents.

In a sale deed normally the price is fixed by the vendor and if the purchaser agrees only then the sale deed is executed. Where the vendor is  "State" within the meaning of Article 12, it may be bound by principle of  non arbitrariness in State action and therefore, may not be permitted to fix unreasonable or exhorbitant price. But the fact remains that some rational price for the land will have to be fixed by the Housing Board and the land will be sold only if the purchaser is ready to pay the price.

More importantly the Housing Board being State within the meaning of Article 12 may not be at liberty to sell this land by any kind of private negotiation, without public notice, auction or tendor in accordance with rules framed by the Housing Board.

Besides the impugned order dated 2.3.2005, passed by the officer of the Housing Board in the form of a letter to the Sub-Registrar saying that the Sub-Registrar should not register the sale deeds because the land belongs to the Housing Board, is again totally misconceived and contrary to law. If a sale deed is presented voluntarily for registration by the person, who has executed the same, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register the same except in the conditions prescribed by the various statutes e.g. whether it is under stamped, as required by the Stamp Act or whether the sale is restricted by an Act like Income Tax Act, which requires clearance from the Income Tax Department for sale deeds above a certain amount. Therefore, the direction of the officer of the Housing Board being misconceived and not binding upon the Sub-Registrar.

However, if any such sale deed is executed, it will not confer any better title upon the purchaser than what the vendor has.

The writ petition is disposed of, as above.

21.9.2005

gp/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.