RAMESHWARLAL Vs. DATTATRAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25-2-99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur decreeing a suit for specific performance filed by the respondents / plaintiffs.

(2.) FACTS , which are not in dispute, necessary for deciding the present appeal are, that the land in dispute is situated in Amagird, Tehsil Burhanpur. Appellant herein, Rameshwarlal, is holding Bhumiswami Rights for the entire land. In Revenue Case No. 19 / A - 2/77-78, he sought diversion of the land for the purpose of using it to establish a colony. The competent authority - exercising jurisdiction under S.172 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, vide order dated 22-6-1979 granted permission. It may be noted that the application for permission under S.172 of the Code, was accompanied by the relevant documents as per the statutory rule applicable for seeking diversion i.e. R.4 and the documents included a tentative map and layout plan of the area. After obtaining diversion, records indicate that the appellant herein applied for a license to undertake colonization. The licence was sought in accordance to the requirement of S.24(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrastha Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam of 1982'). Under the provisions of S.24 of the Adhiniyam of 1982, license for establishing a colony was necessary. At this point, it may be noted that under S.31 of the Adhiniyam of 1982, transfer of plots in an area of illegal diversion or illegal colonization is void.

(3.) THE agreements - Exs. P / 1 to P / 6 executed for sale of the plots and the colony being developed by the appellant was named as Mohan Nagar Colony. One of the conditions in these agreements for sale was that the appellant herein was to obtain the requisite permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer, as contemplated under the Adhiniyam of 1982, for sale of the plots. It seems that even though the appellant obtained the license - Ex. D / 6 and permission for development on 20-1-1992 vide Ex. D / 8, for a long period of time, nothing was done even after 31-10-1987 to execute the sale - deeds. According to the plaintiffs, they were approaching the defendant, who used to orally inform them that immediately after permission is obtained, the sale - deed would be executed. When nothing was done, records indicate that the plaintiffs on 3-9-93, vide Ex. P / 7 to P / 12, served notice through their counsel for execution of the sale - deed. It seems that after some negotiations on 1-4-1994, endorsements were made on the back of Exs. P / 1 to P / 6, to the effect that as no permission to sell the land / plots is obtained, sale would be executed within one month from the permission is granted by the competent authority.