Praveen Vs State Of Maharashtra 2001 Cri LJ 3417
- . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiff was the lawful owner of the house property standing onNazul Plot No. 120 measuring 16,500 sq. ft. bearing M.H. No. 128 situated in Ward No. 73, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur, which is described in the Schedule forming part and parcel of the plant. The plaintiff was duly recorded as the owner of the suit house in the relevant Nazul and Corporation records. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Nazul Plot No. 120 belonging to him was outside the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the “ULC Act”) and that he was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed under the said Act. According to him, he was, therefore, not under obligation to file return under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act before the ‘”Competent Authority U.L.C., Nagpur.
3. It is then the case of the plaintiff that he wanted to sell the suit property to his relations and business acquaintance M/s. Kothari Brothers, with whom he entered into an agreement of sale on 31-3-1976. The consideration agreed to between the parties for the sale of the suit property was Rupees 2,60,000/-.
4. It may be seen that the ULC Act came into force in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 17-2-1976. Section 27(1) of the said Act required the plaintiff and the prospective purchaser to obtain the permission from the Competent Authority under the ULC Act i.e. the defendant No. 2. An application was, therefore, submitted to him for permission to sell the suite property as per the agreement dated 31-3-1976. The said application was registered as ULC Case No. 74 of 76. The defendant No. 2 by his order dated 26-5-1976 rejected the permission for sale of the suit property to the aforesaid prospective purchaser and further by the same order communicated his option to the plaintiff to buy the said property on behalf of the State of Maharashtra.
5. The defendants offered the same consideration which was offered by the prospective purchaser and accordingly in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 26-5-1976 passed under Section 27(1) of the ULC Act, a sale deed was executed between the parties on 23-8-1976 which was registered at Sr. No. 2363 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nagpur. The possession of the suit property was also taken over by the defendant No. 3 i.e. Dy.
Commissioner, Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur on the date of the sale deed. Since then the suit property is in possession and occupation of the defendant No. 3. The defendants are thus the owner of the suit property from the date of the aforesaid sale-deed dated 23-8-1976.
- . ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
- the basis of the pleadings of the parties. Parties led evidence before it, oral as well as documentary. In particular, the plaintiff deposed that he was forced to execute the sale deed in favour of the Government and that the Government took forcible possession of the suit property from him.
- whether the suit is barred by time and whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the declaration that the sale deed of the suit property dated 23-8-1976 is void and that the possession of the suit property should be restored to him on refund of the consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/- to the defendants reteived by him from them.
- Judgement in brief
In the result, the instant appeal is partly allowed. The Judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed as follows:
(a) The decree for possession of the suit property, as described in the Schedule which is a part and parcel of the plaint, is passed against the defendants on the condition that within 2 months from the date of this order the plaintiff shall deposit in the trial Court an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- which amount shall be paid to the defendants.
(b) Claim for damages in the amount of Rs.7,20,000/-is rejected.
(c) On an application being made under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C., there shall be an inquiry into the future mesne profits from the date of deposit of the amount of Rupees 2,60,000/- by the plaintiff in the trial Court till the date the possession is delivered to him if within one week from the date of the deposit of the consideration of Rs. 2,60,000/- in the trial Court by the plaintiff the possession of the suit property is not restored to him by the defendants.
(d) In the circumstances, however, the costs shall be incurred by the parties.
written by kanishka choudhary intern under legal vidhiya
