# Major Pritam Singh & Anr v. Smt. Kamlesh Pundir & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1597 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-16 - **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/major-pritam-singh-anr-v-smt-kamlesh-pundir-anr-43792 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 5 All. Major Pritam Singh & Anr. Vs Smt. Kamlesh Pundir & Anr. 1597 there is a provision in the by laws, at page- 49 of the petition under the heading of 'karyakaal', that tenure of the committee of management shall be three years but under certain conditions, if the election is not held within three years, extension of three months time shall be permissible and after that the election will be binding. Even if this by laws is taken to be right and correct, then Sri Kripa Shanker Pandey did not have right to hold any election unless extended three months time had expired after expiry of three years tenure i.e. on 30.6.2015. If the manager, i.e. the petitioner was not going to hold election within three months, only then this clause will become operational. Admittedly the terms of committee of management was to expire after 30.6.2015 and it was after that expiry that the election could have been held; firstly after the expiry of the terms of three years the Deputy Registrar ought to have gone for fresh election or if by laws are taken to be valid, the election could have been held after three months i.e. after 30.9.2015, which is the date after three months of the expiry of three years tenure. 15. With these discussions, this Court comes to the conclusion that neither the election proceedings and the election held on 15.6.2015 submitted by Ashfaq Ahmad was a valid election, nor Kripa Shanker Pandey had any right to hold the election on 8.7.2015. Consequently, the order of the Deputy Registrar, by which he has recognized the election dated 8.7.2015 is bad in law. The order of the Deputy Registrar to this effect is set aside. 16. In the result, the committee of management of the Society has become time barred and there is no valid committee of management. 17. This writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Registrar to get a fresh election held for the committee of management under its supervision. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J. Second Appeal No.- 7 Of 1994 Major Pritam Singh & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Smt. Kamlesh Pundir & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel For Appellants: Virendra Misra, Saurabh Lavania Counsel For Respondednts: R.K.Agrawal 1598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Head Notes: Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976-Sections 2(o), Explanation (B) & (C), Section 20-Specific Relief Act, 1963-Suit for specific performance-Agreement to sell-Requirement of permission-Nature of landAgricultural land-Exemption from ceiling-Burden of proof-Master Plan-Revenue records-Land governed by Urban Land Ceiling Act-No exemption granted-Refusal of permission to sell-Effect-Specific performance decree-Illegality-Supreme Court remand-Fresh evidence-Affidavit of Competent AuthorityConclusive finding-Second appeal allowed-Suit dismissed. Facts: Agreement to sell executed on 15.10.1980 between appellant and respondent No.1. Execution of sale deed was made conditional upon obtaining permission from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. Respondent No.1 filed suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed in first appeal. Second appeal was allowed by the High Court on 27.04.2004. Civil Appeal No. 3754 of 2005 was filed before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court remanded the matter directing the High Court to examine whether the land was exempt from the Ceiling Act under Section 2(o), Explanations (B) & (C). State of U.P. was impleaded and affidavit of the Competent Authority (Urban Ceiling) was called. Issues: Whether the land in question was exempted from the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 during the period 15.10.1980 to 31.07.1981. Whether permission of the Competent Authority was mandatory for execution of sale deed. Whether decree of specific performance could be passed in absence of such permission. Held: Exemption not established: The land was neither recorded as agricultural in revenue records prior to the appointed day nor exempted under Section 20 of the Act. Effect of Master Plan: In view of Explanation (C) to Section 2(o), land specified for non-agricultural use in the Master Plan cannot be treated as agricultural, notwithstanding revenue entries. Affidavit of Competent Authority: Affidavit filed by the A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue)/Competent Authority categorically stated that no proposal for exemption was ever sent or granted by the State Government. Permission mandatory: Documentary evidence showed refusal of permission to sell, clearly establishing that the land was governed by the Ceiling Act. 5 All. Major Pritam Singh & Anr. Vs Smt. Kamlesh Pundir & Anr. 1599 Specific performance impermissible: In absence of statutory permission, decree for specific performance could not legally be granted. Order: The second appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are set aside. The suit for specific performance is dismissed. The Court reiterates its earlier view taken while allowing the second appeal on 27.04.2004, holding that during the relevant period the land was covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and was not exempted. (Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.) 1. Heard Sri Virendra Mishra for the appellants, Sri R.K. Agrawal for respondent no. 1 and the learned standing counsel for newly impleaded responded State of U.P. 2. This second appeal was finally heard and allowed vide order of this Court dated 27.4.2004. Thereafter, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.3754 of 2005 before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said appeal was disposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.1.2010, which reads as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2004, 27.8.2004 in SA No.7/1994 & RA No.137/2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. "An Important question in this case whether the land in question is exempted from The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 at the relevant time because it was agricultural land. Explanation (B) of Section 2(O) of the Act states :-" "(B) land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture" Explanation ( C) of Section 2 (O) states :- "( C ) notwithstanding anything contained in cl. (B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture." 1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "In our opinion the High Court should have examined the matter properly as to whether the land in question was exempt from ceiling Act in view of the provisions or not. Hence, we remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observation made above. The High Court will decide the matter expeditiously. Parties may lead fresh evidence before the High Court, if so advised. "The Appeals are disposed of." 3. In short the facts of the case are that an agreement to sell was entered into between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 on 15.10.1980. It was stated in para-4 of the suit that it was further agreed that the defendant no.1 will execute the sale deed after obtaining permission from the Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling and when the sale deed was not executed by the appellant, the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract, which was decreed by the trial court. The respondents of the suit filed first appeal before the Court below, which was rejected. Against the orders passed by the Courts below, this second appeal has been preferred by the respondents of the suit. This second appeal was allowed vide order order passed by this Court dated 27.4.2004. The review petition filed against the said order, was also rejected. The plaintiff- respondent no. 1 challenging the order passed in second appeal, approached before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil No. 3754 of 2005 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded back the matter to this Court for decision a fresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the order, expeditiously. 4. In view of the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court that the parties may lead fresh evidence before the High Court, this Court vide order dated 10.2.2016 deemed it expedient that such a question can best be answered by the concerned Govt. Department and their version should also be taken into account by obtaining their affidavit and their statement. It was accordingly directed that the State Govt. should be made party as proforma respondent no. 2 and the learned standing counsel was directed to file affidavit on the facts in issue whether between the period from 15.10.1980 to 31.7.1981 the land in question was covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation )Act, 1976 or not. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, learned standing counsel has been filed affidavit of Sri Dhananjay Shukla, A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue)/ Competent Authority Ceiling. In para- 8 of the affidavit, it has been clarified that on the basis of record available in the department of Urban Ceiling, neither any proposal of exemption under Section 20 of the Act, 1976 was sent to the State Government, nor the State Govt. has passed any order exempting the land in dispute from the purport of Act, 1976. 6. This Court also found that the documentary evidence evidence, which is a letter filed by the Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, proved that the land in governed under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and there was refusal of grant of permission to sell the land. It was held that the permission to sell was necessary under the Act, 1976 as the land in dispute was within the purview of the said Act. Thus, the decree of specific performance in absence of 5 All. Gopal Ji Vs Smt. Naseeran Bibi & Ors. 1601 permission could not be passed. Consequently this second appeal was allowed. The judgments and orders passed by the Courts below were set aside. The suit was thus dismissed. 7. In these view of the matter, this Court answers that in between the period from 15.10.1980 to 31.7.1981 the land in question being covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation )Act, 1976 was not exempted in view of the provisions of Explanation (B) and (C ) of Section 2(O) of the Act. 8. With these observations, this Court reiterates the views drawn earlier while allowing this second appeal vide order dated 27.4.2004. -------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Second Appeal No.- 311 Of 2016 Gopal Ji Appellant Versus Smt. Naseeran Bibi & Ors. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Akhilesh Kumar, Narendra Bhushan Nigam Counsel for the Respondents: Himanshu Shekhar PROCEEDINGS: This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Azamgarh in Original Suit No. 105 of 2000, and the judgment dated 04.02.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Azamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2013, whereby the suit for specific performance was decreed and the appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed. PROCEDURE: The plaintiff-respondent instituted Original Suit No. 105 of 2000 seeking specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 25.04.1997. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that time was not the essence of the contract. The first appellate court affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the present second appeal. STATUTORY PROVISIONS: Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 20, Specific Relief Act, 1963 Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963