High Court of Delhi was dealing with the writ petition filed to issue a writ, direction, order in the nature of certiorari thereby directing the Respondents to grant of No-objection certificate on the application filed by the Respondent for transfer of land in favour of Petitioners.
Brief Facts:
On 24th November, 1981, The Goan Sabha, Ghitorni passed a resolution for leasing land admeasuring approximately 2 acres. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, a Lease Deed came to be executed by the Gaon Sabha in favour of one Kailash Chand Jain. That lease was extended up to 28th December, 1991 whereafter Kailash Chand Jain came to be recorded and declared as the bhumidar thereof in terms of Section 74(4) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The grant of bhumidari rights to Kailash Chand Jain was assailed by the Gaon Sabha unsuccessfully before the Court of the Additional Collector. Consequent to the dismissal of that claim, the rights of Kailash Chand Jain over the plot in question came to be perfected. The original land holder is thereafter stated to have died in August 1996. The name of his son came to be mutated in the revenue records on 30th September, 1996. The son of the original land holder is ultimately have executed an Agreement to Sell in favour of the petitioners and it is in connection with the aforesaid transaction that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was sought from the respondents. The respondents have denied the grant of that NOC asserting that the provisions of Section 74(4) of the 1954 Act have been violated.
HC’s Observations:
HC stated that learned counsel appearing for the respondent was unable to indicate or establish any violation of that provision having been committed by the original land holder or his heirs in terms of the restrictions which stand placed therein. No submissions were also addressed which may have questioned or raised a doubt with respect to the conferment of bhumidari rights on the original land holder. That only leaves the Court to consider whether the permission, as sought, could have been refused in light of the provisions made under the 1954 Act. The Court noted that “Section 31 commences with a recordal that the interest of a bhumidar shall be transferable subject to the conditions imposed thereafter. The only provision which places a fetter on the right of the bhumidar to effect transfer then stands comprised in Section 33.”
The Court found that while further provisions regulating the creation of mortgages, letting of land, lease or exchange stand incorporated, restrictions on transfer stands controlled solely by Section 33. The Court noted that the respondents do not place the refusal NOC on the ground that any of the restrictions contemplated under Section 33 would stand attracted.
HC Held:
After evaluating various case laws and submissions by both the parties the Court held that “The respondents have woefully failed to prove that the proposed alienation would be in violation of any provision of the 1954 Act. That the same is a valid piece of legislation is also not disputed. A legitimate reason to refuse, undisputedly, must be founded in law.
HC allowed the writ petition. HC ordered the respondents to attend to the request for the grant of the NOC, as made by the petitioners.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma
Case Title: US Mishra & Anr v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.
Case Details: W.P.(C) 1708/2012
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments