Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12037 of 2013)
Taranjeet Singh Mohan Singh Sawhney and others ....Appellants
versus
District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and others ....Respondents
J U D G M E N T
G.S. SINGHVI, J.
1. Leave granted.
JUDGMENT
2. This appeal is directed against order dated 20.2.2013 by which the learned
Single Judge of the Bombay High Court refused to stay the order passed by
respondent No.1 – District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies-cum-
Competent Authority, Mumbai City (3)–cum–Competent Authority appointed
under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the
Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 for grant of
certificate to respondent No.3 – Royal Diamond Park Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. to get a unilateral conveyance deed executed and registered in respect
1
Page 1
of an area measuring 2634.36 sq. mtrs. out of CTS Nos.661 to 691 of Village Kole
Kalyan, Bandra.
3. At the outset, we consider it proper to mention that when IA No.3/2013 filed
by respondent No.3 was listed for hearing, learned counsel for the parties were
heard on the merits of the case and the order was reserved.
4. Late Shri Mohan Singh (predecessor of the appellants) owned land
measuring 4144.90 sq. mtrs. comprised in CTS Nos. 661 to 691 of Village Kole
Kalyan, Taluka Andheri. On 16.10.1979, he entered into an agreement with
respondent No.4 for sale of land measuring 3762.45 sq. mtrs. After execution of
the agreement, respondent No.4 constructed five buildings, which were occupied
by the members of three Co-operative Housing Societies, i.e., respondent Nos. 3, 5
and 6.
5. Due to non-payment of the amount in terms of agreement dated 16.10.1979,
the appellants, who are the legal heirs of late Shri Mohan Singh, issued notice
JUDGMENT
dated 16.3.2005 and terminated agreement dated 16.10.1979. After four years,
respondent No.5 approached the appellants for purchase of 702.341 sq. mts. out of
the land owned by late Shri Mohan Singh. At the asking of the appellants,
respondent No.5 produced the consent of respondent Nos. 3 and 6. Thereafter, the
appellants executed conveyance dated 25.8.2011 in favour of respondent No.5 and
the developer – M/s. Rahul Constructions.
6. Although the appellants had terminated agreement dated 16.10.1979,
2
Page 2
respondent No.3 entered into an agreement with M/s. Raja Constructions Company
(M/s. Raja Builders) for redevelopment of the buildings of ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ Wings.
7. In furtherance of the agreement entered with M/s. Raja Builders, respondent
No.3 filed an application in Form VII under Section 11(3) read with Section 11(4)
of the 1963 Act and Rules 11, 12 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats
(Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer)
Rules, 1964 and prayed for grant of a certificate for unilateral execution of the
conveyance deed.
8. Respondent No.1 entertained the application and ordered notices to the
appellants and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. In his reply dated 19.3.2012, appellant
No.1 raised several objections to the maintainability of the application filed by
respondent No.3. In the first place, he pleaded that the relief of specific
performance of the agreement can be obtained only from a Civil Court and
respondent No.1 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application. He also
pleaded that the applicant (respondent No.3 herein) does not have the locus to file
JUDGMENT
the application because agreement dated 16.10.1979 executed by Shri Mohan
Singh in favour of respondent No.4 had already been terminated. According to
appellant No.1, he had already executed an agreement with one of the Societies
and M/s. Rahul Builders and, therefore, respondent No.3 was not entitled to seek
execution of unilateral conveyance in respect of 2507.62 sq. mts. land. Some of
the noticees also filed their affidavits. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed rejoinder
affidavit.
3
Page 3
9. Respondent No.1 fixed the matter for hearing on 23.1.2012, 27.2.2012,
7.3.2012, 13.3.2012, 19.3.2012, 27.3.2012, 3.4.2012 and 17.4.2012. On 7.5.2012,
the case was adjourned for 15.5.2012 with a direction to the appellants to file
written arguments. However, the appellants did not file written arguments and
applied for adjournment. Thereupon, respondent No.1 adjourned the case to
19.6.2012.
10. After sometime, he suo motu changed the date of hearing from 19.6.2012 to
21.5.2012 and a notice to this effect was issued by his office on 16.5.2012. On
21.5.2012, respondent No.1 heard the arguments of the counsel for the applicant
and closed the matter. He finally decided the application vide order dated
12.6.2012, the operative portion of which is reproduced below:
“ORDER AND THE CERTIFICATE
In exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 5A of the
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, I, S. P.
Ghorpade, District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai
City (3), Competent Authority under section 5A of the Maharashtra
Ownership Flats Act, 1963.
JUDGMENT
1. Certify under section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats
(Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and
Transfer) Act, 1963, that the Royal Diamond Park Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd., Datta Mandir Road, Kole Kalyan Vakola,
Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 055 is entitled and is a fit case to grant
unilateral conveyance executed as deemed conveyance in their favour
and to have it registered. Thus, it is entitled to have unilateral
conveyance of land admeasuring gross plot area entitlement of 2634.36
Sq. Meters and net plot area of 2451.12 Sq. Meters out of the said
larger land bearing CTS No. 661 to 691 of Village Kole Kalyan,
Bandra, District Mumbai Suburban and the building constructed
4
Page 4
thereon known as Royal Diamond Park and is entitled to get the
unilateral conveyance deed prepared and executed, as deemed
conveyance and get it registered as provided under the Act.
2. I hereby authorize the applicant society to prepare a Conveyance
Deed to be executed as unilateral conveyance as deemed conveyance
of all the right, title and interest of the promoter M/S. Diamond
Enterprises and Shri Mohansingh Bhagwansingh Sawheny and on his
demise his legal heirs referred as opponent No.1 to 8 namely viz (1)
Mr. Taranjeet Singh Mohan Singh Sawhney, (2) Mrs. Jaspalkaur
Chadha (3) Mr. Sardar Tejinder Singh, (4) Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur
Sawhney, (5) Mr. Inderpreet Singh Sawhney, (6) Mrs. Amit Kaur
Sabarwal, (7) Mrs. Surjit Kaur Sawhney and (8) Mrs. Gajender Pal
Kaur, (being the land owners) and or their legal heirs/ Assignees and
the executors in respect of land admeasuring about land admeasuring
gross plot area entitlement of 2634.36 Sq. Meters and net plot area of
2451.12 Sq. Meters out of the said larger land bearing CIS No. 661 to
691 of Village Kole Kalyan, Bandra, District Mumbai Suburban and
the building known as 'Royal Diamond Park (C, D and E wings)'
constructed on the said plot of land in favour of it and also as provided
under section 11(5) of the Act, direct the sub registrar or the concerned
appropriate Registration officer appointed under the Registration Act,
1908 (16 of 1908) to register this certificate issued by me along with
the Instrument of conveyance as unilateral conveyance as I have been
exempted under the Act to appear before the registration Authority,
and after complying with the provisions of the law register such
conveyance deed as deemed conveyance.
3. The applicant is directed to submit the certified copy of
Conveyance deed, an unilateral instrument of conveyance as deemed
conveyance registered by the Sub-Registrar or the Registration officer
appointed under Registration Act, 1908 along with certified copy of
index II within two months of such registration as required under 9(2)
of the Rules.
JUDGMENT
4. The Sub Registrar shall take further action under the Bombay
Stamp Act, 1958, The Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
5. However this order is issued on the basis of documents and
information submitted by the Applicant and in the belief that there are
no dispute regarding the title of the said land and subject to the
following conditions.
i. The information/documents furnished by the applicant are
5
Page 5
correct and genuine.
ii. That if the above documents produced by the applicant
are found hereinafter to be incorrect and not genuine, the
applicant will be liable to be face the consequences in
accordance with the law.”
11. The appellants challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition
No.10287/2012. One of the grounds taken by the appellants was that respondent
No.1 unilaterally changed the date of hearing and finally decided the matter without
ensuring service of notice issued to the parties about the changed date of hearing.
This is evident from the following statements contained in paragraphs f) and g) of
the writ petition:
“f) This application was opposed by the petitioners as also the
respondent nos. 5 and pleadings filed thereat. The Hon'ble Competent
Authority despite the fact that the Advocate for the respondent no. 3
submitting that she is not filing the rejoinder has taken the rejoinder on
file and despite the fact that the matter was adjourned for filing sur-
th th
rejoinder/hearing on 19 June 2012, proponed the same to 12 June
2012 without giving Notice to the parties and passed a judgment and
th
order on 12 June 2012 stating that the matter was closed for order on
21st May 2012. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit A is the copy
th
of the Order and Judgment dated 12 June 2012 passed by Respondent
no. 1 viz. the Deputy District Registrar (the Competent Authority)
under section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of
the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer)
Act, 1963 entitling the respondents no. 3 to an order for Unilateral
Conveyance executed as Deemed Conveyance in their favour for land
admeasuring gross plot area entitlement of 2634.36 sq. mtrs and net
plot area of 2451.12 sq mtrs out of the common plot of land bearing
Hissa No. 9 & 10 of survey No. 422 and Hissa No. 5 & 3 (part) of
survey no. 423 corresponding CTS no. 661 to 691 of Village Kole
Kalyan, Taluka Andheri MSD admeasuring 4114.90 sq. mtrs, when the
respondents were only concerned with the plot of land of 3762.45 sq.
mtrs only.
JUDGMENT
th
g) The Respondents no. 3 after the impugned order dated 12 June
6
Page 6
2012, immediately without due notice as required under the provisions
of law with the assistance of the Respondent no. 1 executed and
registered the Deemed Conveyance executed on 14th June 2012 and
th
registered on 18 July 2012 bearing registration no. BDR-9/5980/2012
with the Respondent no. 2. The said Conveyance is thus bad in law and
improper as no notice under the Registration Act was given to the
petitioners.”
12. In paragraphs (2) and (3) of the counter affidavit filed before the High Court,
respondent No.1 averred as under:
“2. I say and submit that, the matter was heard on many occasions
viz. on 23.1.2012, 27.2.2012, 7.3.2012, 13.3.2012, 19.3.2012,
27.3.2012, 3.4.2012, 17.4.2012, 7.5.2012 and 15.5.2012. Petitioners
have been given ample opportunity by my predecessor to file their say
in the interest of natural justice. Petitioners have already filed written
reply on 19.3.2012 and thereafter opportunity of arguing the matter
was given to the Petitioners on 3.4.2012. Advocate of Applicant
society submitted that she doesn't want to file rejoinder and was ready
for arguments. There after it was incumbent on Petitioners to argue the
matter or else to file written arguments. On the same date matter was
adjourned for arguments to 17.4.2012. Advocate for Petitioners neither
raise any objections nor he pleaded for longer date. Thereafter also on
17.4.2012 Advocate for Applicant society filed rejoinder and copy was
served on Petitioners on 17.5.2012. Petitioners were directed to file
written arguments on or before next hearing which was fixed on
15.5.2012. On 15.5.2012 also Petitioners didn't file written arguments
and submitted letter for keeping matter after 9.6.2012. Therefore matter
was fixed on 19.6.2012. But later on it was revealed that on 19.6.2012
near about 41 Revision Applications were listed on the board for
hearing before this respondent and therefore it was decided to pre-pone
the matter to 21.5.2012 and notices to that effect were sent to
Petitioners by registered post but this office has not received
acknowledgement from the postal department.
JUDGMENT
3. I say and submit that, the decision of preponing the matter was
taken by my predecessor solely in bonafide interest with a view to
complete the proceeding within a period of six months as contemplated
in Section 11(4) of MOFA 1963.”
(emphasis added)
7
Page 7
13. Along with the writ petition, the appellants filed an application for interim
stay. The learned Single Judge took cognizance of the assertion made in the writ
petition that notice of preponement of the date of hearing was not served upon
them, but refused to grant stay on the ground that the writ petition was filed after
four months of the order passed by respondent No.1 and during the intervening
period conveyance deed had already been registered for a sum of Rs.95 lacs and
the Society and respondent No.3 had entered into development agreements with
builders.
14. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that the
order passed by respondent No.1 is liable to be declared as nullity because he
arbitrarily preponed the date of hearing and decided the application of respondent
No.3 without bothering to find out whether the notice issued to the parties about
the changed date had been delivered/served. Shri Rohatgi referred to the English
translation of the order sheets recorded by respondent No.1, xerox copies of
communications dated 15.2.2013 sent by Senior Superintendant of Post Offices,
JUDGMENT
Mumbai City (North) to Ms. Pritha Dave, counsel for respondent No.3 and the
counter filed on behalf of respondent No.1 before the High Court to show that the
notice issued in terms of the direction given by respondent No.1 on 16.5.2012 was
not served upon the appellants. Learned senior counsel then argued that due to non
service of notice, the appellants could not appear on 21.5.2012 and on that account
their cause has been seriously prejudiced. Shri Rohatgi then submitted that the
absence of the counsel/representatives of all the parties except respondent No.3 on
21.5.2012 should have alerted respondent No.1 that there was something wrong
8
Page 8
with the service of notice and prompted him to make an inquiry to ascertain
whether the notice had been served on all the parties, but the concerned officer
deliberately did not take any action in this regard and proceeded to close the matter
for orders. Shri Rohatgi argued that the explanation given by respondent No.1 for
preponing the date of hearing, i.e., fixation of excess number of cases on the
particular date, i.e., 19.6.2012 should not be accepted because even on 15.5.2012,
the concerned officer must have been aware of the fact that he had already fixed
large number of cases on 19.6.2012.
15. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3, supported
the decision of respondent No.1 to prepone the date of hearing by pointing out that
the officer concerned was compelled to do so because he was required to decide
the application within six months of its institution. Shri Divan referred to letter
dated 15/18.2.2013 sent by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Mumbai City
(North 2) to Ms. Pritha Dave and argued that the intimation given to the appellants’
counsel was sufficient to make them aware of the decision taken by respondent
JUDGMENT
No.1 to prepone the date of hearing. Shri Divan submitted that the appellants
cannot plead denial of hearing by respondent No.1 as the ground for quashing the
order passed by him because their advocate had been duly intimated about the
changed date of hearing. However, learned senior counsel could not offer any
clarification about the delivery of notice to the sender on 22.5.2012.
16. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully scrutinized the
record.
9
Page 9
17. By producing xerox copies of the receipt of speed post and two
communications dated 15.2.2013 sent by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mumbai City (North) to Ms. Pritha Dave, respondent No.3 has made an attempt to
show that the appellants had been informed about the changed date of hearing, but
we have not felt convinced. In the first place, the justification offered for
preponement of the date of hearing is too weak to be accepted. It is neither the
pleaded case of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 nor it has been argued before us that the
application filed by respondent No.3 was the only one dealt with by the officer
concerned. Rather, the assertion contained in the counter filed by respondent No.1
before the High Court shows that large number of similar cases were handled by
the officer. Therefore, it can be presumed that he was aware of the imperative to
decide the application within six months. Notwithstanding this, respondent No.1
fixed large number of cases on 19.6.2012. Why he did so has not been explained.
Why he singled out the application of respondent No.3 for preponing the date of
hearing has also not been explained. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the
JUDGMENT
action of respondent No.1 to prepone the date of hearing of the application was
founded on extraneous reasons and was totally unwarranted and unjustified.
18. Secondly, the documents produced before this Court unmistakably show that
notice issued to the appellants to apprise them about the changed date of hearing
was not delivered to them. The statement made in paragraph (Z) of the counter
affidavit filed by respondent No.1 substantially supports the appellants’ assertion
that they had not received intimation about preponement of the date of hearing. It
also belies the assertion of respondent No.3 that notice was delivered to the
10
Page 10
appellants before the date of hearing, i.e., 21.5.2012. If the notice had been duly
served upon the appellants, then respondent No.1 would have produced the receipt
of delivery. His failure to do so leads to an irresistible inference that the appellants
were not made aware of the fact that the date of hearing had been changed from
19.6.2012 to 21.5.2012. The documents produced by respondent No.3 do not help
us in resolving the controversy regarding service of notice on the appellants. The
contents of these documents only adds to the confusion. If the second letter dated
15.2.2013 sent by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office was delivered on
22.5.2012 then we have no option but to hold that the notice issued by the office of
respondent No.1 was delivered to the addressee on 22.5.2012, i.e., one day after
the date fixed for hearing.
19. As a corollary to the above findings, it must be held that order dated
12.6.2012 passed by respondent No.1 is vitiated due to violation of the rule of audi
alteram partem and is liable to be set aside.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also order dated
JUDGMENT
12.6.2012 passed by respondent No.1 are set aside and the matter is remitted to
respondent No.1 for fresh disposal of the application filed by respondent No.3 for
grant of certificate for unilateral execution of conveyance. Respondent No.1 shall
make an endeavour to decide the application of respondent No.3 within a period of
three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment without
being influenced by order dated 12.6.2012.
......………………………..….J.
11
Page 11
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New Delhi, ...….……..…..………………..J.
. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI]
July 1, 2013
JUDGMENT
12
Page 12