PEROJA DADABHOY SETT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order of 2nd Respondent i. e. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (ULC) dated 30-61980 refusing the petitioner application to sanction transfer of immovable property and directing the 3rd Respondent the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. Bombay, to register the Deed to Transfer dated 31st December 1979 and to issue the certificate of registration under s. 60 of the Registration Act.

(2.) A few relevant facts for the disposal of the petitioner are as under: One Dadabhoy Sett left a will dated 18th January 1975 bequeathing an immovable property being Plot No. 24 Worli Estate jointly to the petitioner, The petitioner were also executors of the will. The said Dadabhoy Sett died on 5-4-75. On 12th December 1975, the Petitioner as Trustees and Executors of the estate of the said deceased Dadabhoy obtained probate to the said Will. As a result of the probate amounts the other properties of the deceased the land which were the subject-matter of the petitioner vested in the petitioner, Under the will. the two petitioner as legatees were entitled to the said lands as tenants in common in equal shares. On 13th December 1979 the petitioner as executors executed a deed of transfer transferring the lands to themselves as legatees as tenants-incommon. On the very day they made an application under Section 27(2) of t Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act to the 2nd respondent for permission to transfer the said lands, On 10th January 1980, they lodged a deed of transfer with Respondent No. 3 being the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. Bombay, for admitting execution of the deed under Sr. No. 66/80. On the said application the Sub-Registrar made an endorsement saying that Income-tax certificate under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act and N. O. C. i. e No Objection Certificate under S. 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, was required to be produced. On 21st January 1980, the petitioner made an application to Respondent No. 2 for No. Objection Certificate under S. 27 of the said Act and as the receipt of the application (being Ex. 'E' to the petitioner) shows that on 24th January 1980, the office of the 2nd respondent bad received the said application. The 2nd Respondent by his letter dated 1st February 1980 asked the petitioner to furnish certain information asked fro therein. Item 8 therein which is relation was the state plan (Block plan) in triplicate drawn to the scale and showing therein the buildings and their application land distinctly along with the details of their areas in sq. metres. He also pointed out that if the petitioner failed to furnish the above information or document within 20 days from the date of the receipt of the letter. the application may be rejected. The petitioner did not reply to the said letter as according to them S. 27 was not applicable to them as their lands did not come within the Ceiling. On 4-3-1980,. the petitioner by their advocate's under letter forwarded to respondent No. 3 a certificate under S. 230-A of the Income-tax Act. The petitioners' Advocate by his letter dated 3rd July 1980 requested Respondent No. 3 to register the deed as requisitions were complied with. However, Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 30-6-1980 rejected the petitioner application under S. 27. By his letter dated 24th July 1980. the petitioner advocate called upon the Registrar to register the deed for the with and to issue a notice dated 25th September 1981 to that effect. Respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 30th September 1980 pointed out the Respondent No. 2 that according to the petitioner advocate's letter dated 25th September 1981, on permission was required under S. 27(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and requested the said Deputy Coll to enlighten him in the matter. The present petitioner challenged the said order of the 2nd respondent dated 5-7-80 refusing to grant sanction under S. 27 of the Ceiling Act. and the Sub-Registrar Respondent No. 3 dated 5-7-1980 rejecting the said application.

(3.) The main contention of the leaned counsel for petitioner is that since the authority under the Land Ceiling Act and failed to communicate to the petitioner the refusal within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the application by the authority: under Section 27 of the said land Ceiling Act the authority was deemed to have granted the permission applied for and therefore there was no necessity for the petitioner to produce any No Objection Certificate (N. O. C) under said Act before the Sub-Registrar for registering the transfer.