Kamlesh Kumari Chadha vs State of Haryana and ors.

G.R. Majithia, J.

The petitioner has assailed the validity of the order of the State Government contained in memo No. 8/147/85/2C II dated 1611986 conveyed by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ambala to her vide memo No. 631/TS (2495 TS dated 31186) dated 2811986. Reference to few facts is necessary to appreciate the point arising for determination.

The petitioner moved to respondent No. 1 for transfer of a plot measuring 255/6 square yards near the Milk Booth in street Lakshmi Commercial Bank linking Dev Samaj College Road, Amabala City. Respondent No. 1 vide memo No. 8/147/8586 dated 20.9.1985 decided to transfer plot measuring 23''3''x10'' at the rate of Rs. 1400/ per square yard to the petitioner and conveyed the information to her. Vide memo No. 459/TS dated 26.9. 1985, Annexure P3, respondent No. 2 called upon the petitioner to deposit the sale price amounting to Rs. 36,166.66 within three days of the receipt of the order. The amount was deposited and a sale deed dated October 1, 1985 was executed and got registered in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 vide memo No. 63 I/TS(2495TS dated 31.1.1986) dated 28.1.1986, Annexure P5, intimated the petitioner that respondent No. 1 vide No 8/147/85/2C II dated 16.1.1986 had decided to cancel the sale.

The State justified the action on the ground that on reconsideration, it was decided to have the plot open for public use and the respondent No. 2 was directed to refund the sale price.

Respondent No. 4 tried to justify the action on the ground that Municipal Committee has no right to transfer the land.

The action of the State is defenceless. A binding contract had come into existence between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, Respondent No. 1 could not unilaterally set aside a concluded contract, of course, it is open to the State to avoid a concluded contract under the provisions of Sections 17 to 23 of the Contract Act. In the instant case by an executive fiat, the State has thought it convenient to set aside the concluded transaction. The action of the State Government cannot be justified in law. All executive actions of the State must have a legal sanction behind. There is no provision in the Transfer of Property Act enabling the State to unilaterally set aside a concluded transaction. The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated January 16, 1986 of the Government is set aside. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.