NARAYAN Vs. ABHIJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent heard finally at the stage of admission Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the executing Court in Special Darkhast No. 13/2005 directing the petitioner himself to obtain a permission for the purpose of sale of the suit land.

(2.) The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of the suit land. Agreement of sale was executed by respondent i.e. judgment debtor in his favour. Suit was filed for execution of sale deed. The suit was decreed on the basis of consent terms filed by both the parties. Execution proceedings were filed by the petitioner i.e. decree holder in the executing Court vide Special Darkhast No. 13/2005. This fact is not denied by the respondents. The respondents after filing the consent terms, refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner - decree holder, therefore, the petitioner filed execution proceedings i.e. Special Darkhast No. 13/2005 before the executing Court. In the execution proceedings, respondents raised objection that the suit land falls under the benefited zone as per the provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as "said Act") and in the absence of the permission of the Commissioner, under Section 12 of the said Act, the land cannot be transferred. On hearing the parties on this issue, the executing Court by its order dated 2.2.2012, directed decree holder to obtain necessary permission from the District Collector, Nanded. On 18.2.2012, the executing Court extended time to obtain a necessary permission from the competent authority. The petitioner moved application Exh. 98 in darkhast proceedings mentioning therein that it is difficult for him to get the permission from the Collector within the specific period given by the Court and, therefore, he sought further time. Executing Court, by its order dated 5.3.2012 extended time for obtaining the necessary permission for sale transaction of the suit land. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.2.2012 and also order dated 5.3.2012 in this petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Section 12 of the Act, the trial Court ought not to have directed the decree holder who is an old aged person to obtain permission from the Collector. He submitted that it is the owner i.e. the judgment debtor, who has to apply for such permission. However, the trial Court has saddled this responsibility on the petitioner which is against the position of law, as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act.