Nagar Parishad Alwar vs Rajnath Gupta

THE respondent No.2 -Nagar Vikas Nyas allotted a plot measuring 50 ft. X 70 ft. to one Avinash Kumar Gupta in the year 1962. The case of the complainant is that the payment for the aforesaid plot was made by him and even the construction on it was raised from his funds. This is also his case that Avinash Kumar Gupta had executed a release deed, releasing the plot in question in his favour and Nagar Vikas Nyas had also added his name in the sale deed of this plot. The sale deed in favour of the complainant having not been registered, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. Since the scheme in which the allotment was made was later transferred by Nagar Vikas Nyas to Nagar Parishaad, Alwar, the said Nagar Parishaad was also impleaded as an opposite party in the complaint.

THE complainant separately filed a civil suit against Avinash Kumar Gupta before a Civil Court in which he was declared as the sole owner of the plot in question.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that though the copy of the alleged release deed has not been made available to them, the sale deed available on their record indicates that the name of the complainant, Rajnath Gupta had been added later on in the said document. It was further stated in the reply that in the record of the opposite party the name of the complainant appears to have been added later on in different writing and using a different ink. It was also pointed out in the reply that there was no order on the file permitting addition of the name of the complainant with the name of the allotee, Avinash Kumar Gupta. It was also stated in the reply that a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court was also filed by the complainant against the petitioner and after considering their reply the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 16 -12 -2008. The learned counsel for the complainant states that in fact the writ petition was withdrawn after filing of the reply by the petitioner.

Vide order dated 30 -04 -2009, the District Forum dismissed the complaint against the Nagar Vikas Nyas, Alwar, but allowed the same against Nagar Parishaad, Alwar. The complainant was directed to submit the original declaration and affidavit of the legal heirs of Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta who died in the year 1999 and the Nagar Parishaad was directed to take action for registration of the plot in the name of the complainant.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the Nagar Parishaad approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The appeal, however, came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 26 -03 -2014. Being aggrieved the Nagar Parishaad is before us by way of this revision petition.

ADMITTEDLY , the release deed alleged to have been executed by late Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta in favour of the complainant Rajnath Gupta has not been registered. In view of the provisions contained in Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, the aforesaid document was compulsory registrable, since it purported to transfer rights in respect of immovable property worth more than Rs.100/ -. In the absence of registration of the document, it cannot be accepted and acted upon by the petitioner and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

MORE importantly, a release deed could not have been executed by late Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta in favour of the complainant. The release deed can be executed by one of the co -owners of the property in favour of another co -owner. Since late Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta was the sole allotee of the plot in question he had no legal authority to relinquish the said plot in favour of the complainant. This is yet another reason why the complaint must necessarily fail.

LATE Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta had no legal right to sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with possession of the plot allotted to him without prior permission of opposite party No.2 Nagar Vikas Nyas, Alwar. Admittedly, no such permission was obtained by him before allegedly executing a relinquishment deed in favour of the complainant.

AS far as execution by way of a gift deed is concerned, since late Avinash Kumar Gupta did not execute any such deed in favour of the complainant nor have his legal heirs executed the gift deed in his favour we need not go into the question as to whether the allottee was competent to gift the aforesaid plot to the complainant and if so, whether any permission from the concerned development authority is required before executing such a gift deed or not. However, the official who is present before us states that the nephew is not one of the family members as per their rules. It would be pertinent to note here that the case of the complainant is that late Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta was his nephew, though no such evidence has been produced before us. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the only document executed in favour of the complainant was an unregistered release deed which the allottee late Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta was not competent to execute. More importantly, no permission from the concerned development authority was taken before executing the said release deed.

AS far as preparation of a sale deed in the joint name of Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta and the complainant is concerned, the reply filed before the District Forum clearly shows that the said addition was an unauthorized act since no order permitting addition of the name of the complainant with the name of Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta is available in the relevant file. As noted earlier, the addition of the name of the complainant was found to be in a different ink and different hand writing, which prima facie indicates some kind of connivance between the concerned officials and the complainant.

THE learned counsel for the complainant submits that in view of the order of the Civil Court the petitioner must necessarily execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. We, however, cannot accept the contention for the simple reason that the petitioner was not a party to the civil suit between the complainant and Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta. Therefore, the petitioner is not bound by the aforesaid decision of the Civil Court.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we held that the District Forum and the State Commission were clearly in wrong in directing execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant. The impugned orders are set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.