Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7934-7935 of 2005
PETITIONER:
INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD.
RESPONDENT:
JAGDISH RAI PURI & OTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2008
BENCH:
Markandey Katju & Aftab Alam
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
O R D E R
1. These Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Orissa High
Court dated 08th October, 2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos.7230 of 2003 and
2551 of 2003.
2. The facts of the case are mentioned in the impugned judgment of the High
Court in great detail and we need not refer to the same except where
necessary.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It appears that there was an agreement to sell in favour of respondent
No.1 herein-Jagdish Rai Puri and for specific performance of the same, a
suit was filed which was decreed by the High Court in First Appeal No.348
of 1984 on 30.08.1994. In that judgment, it was mentioned that the
plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of contract of sale is decreed
and for executing the sale deed, defendant will seek permission from the
State Government, as such permission was required as it was a government
land. The land had been granted to the respondent No.2 herein who entered
into an agreement to sell the land to respondent no.1 in these appeals.
5. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the said permission was
refused by the State Government by its order dated 23.5.2003. Against that
order, a writ petition was filed which has been decided by the impugned
judgment.
6. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment of the High Court. While
agreeing with the High Court that the order dated 23.5.2003 refusing
permission was unsustainable, we are of the opinion that the High Court
should not have directed the State Government to grant the necessary
permission for transfer of the said land in favour of the appellant and
should not have directed the opposite party No.1 in the said writ petition
to have executed the deed of transfer in favour of the appellant. Instead,
the High Court should have remitted the matter to the State Government for
deciding the application seeking permission to transfer the said land
afresh on relevant considerations.
7. Recently, in Civil Appeal Nos.6387-6390 of 2002 decided on 20th
November, 2008 titled Union of India & Another vs. Bilash Chand Jain &
Another, this Court held that the High Court cannot itself perform the
functions which are to be performed by some other authority. If that
authority passed an order which the High Court finds is not sustainable in
law, the High Court can set aside the said order and remit the matter to
the concerned authority for deciding the same afresh in accordance with
law, but the High Court should not take over the function of the authority
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
itself.
8. We reiterate the views given in the aforesaid decision which has
referred to the earlier decisions of this Court on the point.
9. Accordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgment
of the High Court to the extent indicated above and remit the matter to the
State Government which shall decide the application seeking permission to
transfer the said land afresh in accordance with law within two months from
the date of communication of this order after hearing the parties
concerned. No order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No.3836/2005
10. In view of our decision passed today in Civil Appeal Nos.7934-7935 of
2004, as admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 (appellant in
Civil Appeal Nos.7934-7935/2004), the direction of the High Court no longer
survives and this appeal has become infructuous.
11. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.