Vandana and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2007 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which the appeal filed by the defendant/respondents, has been partly accepted.

The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in his possession, by claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the property in dispute, on the basis of purchase, by way of sale deed dated 3.4.1996, executed by registered owner of the property.

The plaintiff was sought to be dispossessed by the defendant/respondents by canceling the allotment made in favour of the original allottee without issuing any show cause notice to the plaintiff.

The learned trial Court was pleased to decree the suit by holding the plaintiff/appellant to be bona fide purchaser for value and consideration by way of registered sale deed dated 3.4.1996. However, basic ground, on the basis of which plaintiff/appellant succeeded, was that even though he was recorded as registered owner of the property, no notice was issued to the plaintiff/appellant, before canceling the allotment.

The learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the decree passed by the learned trial Court. However, permitted the defendant/respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for cancellation of allotment, if so advised, in accordance with law.

The plaintiff/appellants prima facie cannot be aggrieved by the judgment and decree, as no Court can restrain the authorities to act in accordance with law, if permitted.

However, the grievance raised is that even though the cancellation of allotment was sought on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, a finding has been recorded that the plaintiff/appellants are not bona fide purchaser, which may come in the way of appellant in subsequent proceedings, if any.

The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that even though decree is in favour of appellant but virtually plaintiff/appellants have been non-suited, as in case any fresh proceedings are initiated, appellants will have no defence to raise before the authorities. In case of fresh proceeding authorities would be required to take decision independently on the facts and circumstances. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration:

Whether the learned lower appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree to cancel the impugned order for want of compliance of principles of natural justice, could hold the plaintiff/appellants not bona fide purchaser for consideration?

It will be for the authorities to decide the question, if they decide to proceed afresh for cancellation of allotment, after issuing notice, the plaintiff/appellants. Applicants can not challenge the power to be exercised by the authorities, once the permission has been given to the authorities to decide matter afresh independently after giving opportunity to the plaintiff/appellants.

As already observed, the plaintiff/appellants can have no objection to the decree passed, as the authorities can always act in accordance with law and no bar can be created against the authority to act in accordance with law, as observed by learned lower appellate Court.

This appeal is disposed of with an observation that the findings of the learned lower appellate Court holding that plaintiff/appellants to be not bona fide purchaser cannot be sustained as it would be for the authority to consider and determine the questions raised independently on the basis of evidence and documents to be produced, in case, authorities proceed to take any action in accordance with law for cancellation of the allotment.