SANGITA CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri G Pegu, learned State Counsel, Assam. Also heard Shri BJ Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that a Deed of Agreement to Sale dated 23.12.2017 (for short Agreement) was entered into between the original petitioner (Om Prakash Rathi) and respondent no. 5-vendor in respect of a property described as Room No.T-17, 3rd Floor in the Parmeshwari Building, Chatribari, Guwahati (for short Building). As per the Agreement, the consideration amount was fixed at Rs.8,09,600/- and the said amount was paid in full by the original petitioner on 14.02.2018 and on the same date, the possession was handed over. Since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the same. As a consequential action of the Agreement, the owner-respondent no. 5 had duly applied for Sale Permission in respect of the property mentioned above. However, it appears that the respondent no. 4 had lodged an Objection dated 30.07.2018 which, however, pertains to Room No. G-14 in the ground floor of the Building. Thereafter, though the matter was pursued by the petitioner, nothing was done by the authorities to grant the Sale Permission and get the sale registered.

(3.) Shri Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legal impediment whatsoever for consideration of the application for grant of Sale Permission submitted by the respondent no. 5-vendor. It is submitted that on enquiry, an Objection dated 30.07.2018 has been found to be submitted by the respondent no. 4 stating that he is a tenant of Room No. G-14 and, accordingly, claims preferential right in case of such sale. By drawing the attention of this Court to the said Objection dated 30.07.2018, the learned counsel submits that there is not even a remote reference to the subject of sale between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 and, therefore, the said Objection dated 30.07.2018 could not have played any role in denying grant of Sale Permission. Apart from the said Objection, there is nothing on record which could have prevented the authorities from considering the application for grant of Sale Permission. The learned counsel for the petitioner goes a step further in contending that even assuming but not admitting that an objection is made in respect of a property which is the subject matter of a sale, such objection has to be supported by an order passed by a competent court in the nature of an injunction or stay and in absence of such order, an objection by itself cannot be a reason to deny such permission. It is a different matter that if the authorities wishes to give a hearing to the parties, but the mere fact that submitting an objection cannot stand on the way of considering an application for grant of Sale Permission.