KRIPA Vs. SUFEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above mentioned three appeals arise out of different suits filed for specific performance and are disposed of by common judgment as identical questions arise in all these appeals Appellants entered into an agreement for sale in respect of different portions of agricultural land, situated in district Alwar, on June 10, 1986 which were between permanent allottees of those lands. These lands were earlier evacuee properties and were transferred to Slate, the allotment of which was governed by Rajasthan Land Revenue (Permanent Allotment of Evacuee Agricultural Land) Rules, 1963 (here in after referred to as 'the Rules'). The first contention of Shri H C Rastogi learned Counsel for the appellants is that the agreement to sell itself was void and illegal in as much as it went against the specific provisions of allotment in Sub -rules (5) and (7) of Rule 5 of the Rules. It is pointed out that the allottee could not sell, mortgage or in any other manner transfer or part with the possession of the whole or any part of land or his interest in the same so long as the full price of the land together with the interest due, if any and all out standings of the land were paid in full. Admittedly the respondents paid the loan installments and interest etc. to the State after they entered into agreement for sale. It is therefore, contended that since agreement itself was void, the subsequent sale also becomes illegal.

(2.) WE do not find any force in this contention of the learned Counsel as the agreement to sell stands on different footing than the sale of land as far as Sub -rule (5) of the Rule 5 is concerned it prohibits the parting with the possession of the whole or any part of the land or interest of the allottee in the same. Evidently an agreement to sell does not transfer interest of the allottee in the land. In the agreement itself one of the conditions mentioned is that the respondent was to pay balance of installments, if any as well as the loan of the rehabilitation department, which the respondents have done as per the agreement itself. This point has been dealt with in detail by the learned Single Judge and we, therefore, find no substance in this contention.