# D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. . I v. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ANR. ETC. MAY4, 2000

- **Citation:** [2000] 3 S.C.R. 970
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2423 of 1999
- **Bench:** D.P. Wadhwaandrumapal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-l-f-universal-ltd-i-v-appropriate-authority-and-anr-etc-may4-2000-17448
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Income Tax Act, I961-Sections 269 UA to 269 UM (Chapter XX-C),
276 AB-Income Tax Rules, 1962-Rule 48L, From 37-1-Transferor and
transferee of a flat filing From 37-I before the Appropriate Authority seeking
no objection to the registration of the flat with the registering authorityAppropriate authority pointing out certain defects in Fonn 37-I and requiring
filing of a revised fonn within 15 days-Revised fonn filed after 15 days,
rejected-Tenability of-Held, the 15 days period in Rule 48L is not mandatory and the Appropriate Authority was not correct in holding that the
statement in Fonn 37-I after 15 day was deemed never to have been
furnished-Rejection of Fonn 37-I on the ground that requisite particulars .
were not furnished was inappropriate as it a composite fonn not requiring all
particulars to be furnished-Appropriate Authority to either pass an order for
purchase by the Central Government of the ifrimovable property in question
or issue a no objection cert;ficate-In tJrt pfesent case, no such order for
purchase having been made within three nionths of the receipt of Fonn 37-I,
Appropriate Authority duty bound to issue no objection certificate to the
transfer of the property.
Interpretation of Statutes :
F
Chapter XX-C, Income Tax Act, 196I-Object of, restated-Such object
G
to be the consideration while examination of the statement in Fonn 37-IAppropriate Authority not to act in a mechanical fashion and pass its order on
irre Levant considerations.
•
Won:lr and Phrases:
'Agreement for transfer' -Meaning of
Two companies being engaged in the business of developing and
dealing in real estate, entered into agreements with private parties for sale
H
of flats/apartments. Formal agreements; incorporating the terms of sale
970
D.L.F. UNNERSAL LTD. v. APPROPRIATE AUTIIORITY
971
were entered into. Subsequently, the two companies as transferors and the
private parties as transferees filed Form 37-1 of the Income Tax Rules,
1962 before the Appropriate Authority seeking no objection to the registration of the flats/apartments with the registering authority. The Appropriate Authority sent notices to the transferors and the transferees under
Section 269 UC( 4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pointing out certain defects
in Form 37-1 and requiring them to remove the defects within 15 days by
filing revised Form 37-1. Replies thereto were filed. However, by orders
made under Section 269 UC(4) of the Income Tax Act, Appropriate Authority held that !)>rm 37-1 had been belatedly field in contravention of
Rule 48-L and was not maintainable.
Against the aforesaid orders of the Appropriate Authority rejecting
J;'orm 37-1, writ petitions were filed and the High Court allowed the same,
setting aside the orders of the Appropriate Authority. Aggrieved, Appropriate Authority filed all the present appeals except one preferred by one
A
B
c
of the transferor-companies being aggrieved by the interpretation given by
D
the High Court to Section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act and Rule 48-L
and Form 37-l of the Income Tax Rules.
On behalf of the Appropriate Authority, it was contended that 15
days period In Rule 48-L was mandatory and that Section 276 AB provided for prosecution in case there was failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269 UC; that the Appropriate Authority could exercise its
jurisdiction to acquire the property if consideration agreed to was less
than 15 per cent of the market value; that the agreement for transfer
contained variables and unless all these were known, it would be handicapped in making an order under Section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Statementin Form 37-1 was in order and was furnished
E
F
to the Appropriate Authority within the time prescribed. The Appropriate
Authority did not make any order within three months of its receipt of the
G
said statement for purchase by the Central Government of the immovable
property in question. That being the position, the Appropriate

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 66,091. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD.
. I
v.
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND ANR. ETC.
MAY4, 2000
[D.P. WADHWAANDRUMAPAL,JJ.]
Income Tax Act, I961-Sections 269 UA to 269 UM (Chapter XX-C),
276 AB-Income Tax Rules, 1962-Rule 48L, From 37-1-Transferor and
transferee of a flat filing From 37-I before the Appropriate Authority seeking
no objection to the registration of the flat with the registering authorityAppropriate authority pointing out certain defects in Fonn 37-I and requiring
filing of a revised fonn within 15 days-Revised fonn filed after 15 days,
rejected-Tenability of-Held, the 15 days period in Rule 48L is not mandatory and the Appropriate Authority was not correct in holding that the
statement in Fonn 37-I after 15 day was deemed never to have been
furnished-Rejection of Fonn 37-I on the ground that requisite particulars .
were not furnished was inappropriate as it a composite fonn not requiring all
particulars to be furnished-Appropriate Authority to either pass an order for
purchase by the Central Government of the ifrimovable property in question
or issue a no objection cert;ficate-In tJrt pfesent case, no such order for
purchase having been made within three nionths of the receipt of Fonn 37-I,
Appropriate Authority duty bound to issue no objection certificate to the
transfer of the property.
Interpretation of Statutes :
F
Chapter XX-C, Income Tax Act, 196I-Object of, restated-Such object
G
to be the consideration while examination of the statement in Fonn 37-IAppropriate Authority not to act in a mechanical fashion and pass its order on
irre Levant considerations.
•
Won:lr and Phrases:
'Agreement for transfer' -Meaning of
Two companies being engaged in the business of developing and
dealing in real estate, entered into agreements with private parties for sale
H
of flats/apartments. Formal agreements; incorporating the terms of sale
970
D.L.F. UNNERSAL LTD. v. APPROPRIATE AUTIIORITY
971
were entered into. Subsequently, the two companies as transferors and the
private parties as transferees filed Form 37-1 of the Income Tax Rules,
1962 before the Appropriate Authority seeking no objection to the registration of the flats/apartments with the registering authority. The Appropriate Authority sent notices to the transferors and the transferees under
Section 269 UC( 4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pointing out certain defects
in Form 37-1 and requiring them to remove the defects within 15 days by
filing revised Form 37-1. Replies thereto were filed. However, by orders
made under Section 269 UC(4) of the Income Tax Act, Appropriate Authority held that !)>rm 37-1 had been belatedly field in contravention of
Rule 48-L and was not maintainable.
Against the aforesaid orders of the Appropriate Authority rejecting
J;'orm 37-1, writ petitions were filed and the High Court allowed the same,
setting aside the orders of the Appropriate Authority. Aggrieved, Appropriate Authority filed all the present appeals except one preferred by one
A
B
c
of the transferor-companies being aggrieved by the interpretation given by
D
the High Court to Section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act and Rule 48-L
and Form 37-l of the Income Tax Rules.
On behalf of the Appropriate Authority, it was contended that 15
days period In Rule 48-L was mandatory and that Section 276 AB provided for prosecution in case there was failure to comply with the provisions of Section 269 UC; that the Appropriate Authority could exercise its
jurisdiction to acquire the property if consideration agreed to was less
than 15 per cent of the market value; that the agreement for transfer
contained variables and unless all these were known, it would be handicapped in making an order under Section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Statementin Form 37-1 was in order and was furnished
E
F
to the Appropriate Authority within the time prescribed. The Appropriate
Authority did not make any order within three months of its receipt of the
G
said statement for purchase by the Central Government of the immovable
property in question. That being the position, the Appropriate Authority is _
duty bound to issue no objection certificate to the transfer of the property
in the circumstances of the case. The Appropriate Authority is directed to
grant no objection certificate to the parties forthwith. [994-B-C}
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 3 S.C.R.
A
MOL Engineering ud. and Another v. Appropriate Authority and 0th-
)..
~
ers, (1992) 198 ITR 270; Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports ud. v. Appropriate
Authority, (1998) 101 Taxman 562 (DB) (Cal.), approved.
Tanvi Trading and Credits P. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority, (1991) 188
B
ITR 623; Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority, (1998) 99
Taxman 32 (Cal.), referred to.
1.2. The Appropriate Authority was not correct in p~ing orders
)t
that the statement in Form 37-I was deemed never to have been furnished,
thus creating a stalement far sale of the flats which have by now been built
c
but could not be transferred. Statement filed in Form 37-I was in order.
One of.the grounds of rejection of Form 37-I was that it did not contain
particulars required by paras 12 and 13 given in the Form. It must be seen
that Form 37-I is a composite form used whether the transaction is sale,
lease or exchange. It may not, therefore, be necessary that all the paras are
D
required to be filled in when the transaction is either for sale or lease or
exchange. Para 12 requires the particulars about the acquisition of the
property which is proposed to be transferred. Requirement of Para 13 is
that names of the persons interested in the property be given and so also
the consideration specifying their shares and basis thereof. As far as paras
12 and 13 are concerned, these requirements and particulars in the case of
~
E
agree.ment for transfer as in the present case would appear to be rather
unnecessary. [991-G; 990-E]
1.3. Provision of Chapter XX-C do not require the parties to enter
into more than one agreement for transfer. It is on the basis of the terms of
F
that agreement for transfer which is reduced into writing in the shape of
Form 37-I that the Appropriate Authority has to make up its mind to pass
an ord~r under Section 269 UD. These provisions do not contemplate filing
of more than one Form 37-I and grant of more than one no objection
certificate by the Appropriate Authority. When an order is made under
G
Section 269 UD with respect to that property, it shall place that Central
Government in the same position in relation to such right as the person in
whom such a right would have continued to vest if such order had not been
~
made. The whole agreement for transfer and Form 37-I are before the
Appropriate Authority. It has to make its mind once and for all whether to
pass an order under Section 269 UD or not. If not, it is bound to grant no
H
objection certificate as required by Section 296 UL. [989-F; 990-A-C]
,.
J
D.L.F. UNNERSAL LTD. v. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
973
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors., (1993) 199 ITR 530, relied on.
1.4. The very historical setting in which the provisions of chapter
XX-C were enacted indicates that it was intended to be resorted to only in
cases where there is an attempt at tax evasion by significant under-valuation of immovable property agreed to be sold. It is the fair market value of
the immovable property, which is to be found out and if the Appropriate
Authority is satisfied that the apparent consideration shown in the agreement for sale is Jess than the market value by 15 per cent or more, it may
draw a presumption that this under valuation has been done with a view to
evading tax. While examining the statement in Form 37-1, thi<> object has
to be kept in view by the Appropriate Authority. It cannot act in a
mechanical fashion and pass its order on irrelevant considerations.
Sub-section (4) of Section 269 UC is not a device for the Appropriate
Authority to raise irrelevant considerations ignoring the very object of
Chapter XX-C. [991-D-E]
A
B
c
Jagdish A. Sadarangani v. Government of India, (1998) 230 ITR 442;
D
Appropriate Authority v. Tanvi Trading and Credits Private Ltd., (1991) 191
ITR 307, relied on.
K.P. Varghese v.1ncome Tax Officer, (1981) 131 ITR 597, referred to.
2. Agreement f~r transfer and statement in Form 37-1 are two different documents. Agreement for transfer can be oral as we~l as in writing but
then this agreement for transfer has to be reduced in writing in Form 37-1.
An 'agreement for transfer' is inter-parties and that can always be changed.
That the term 'agreement for transfer' in fact means statement in Form
37-1 rands its support in Section 269 UK which says that no person shall
revoke or alter an agreement for the transfer of an immovable property or
transfer such property in respect of which a Statement has been furnished
under Section 269 UC. Reference to this statement is certainly to Form 371. It would mean that agreement for transfer can be changed by the parties
but they have been forbidden from doing so after statement in Form 37-1
has been furnished. Foundation for exercise of jurisdiction by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269 UD is the statement in Form 37-1 and
not agreement for transfer. [984-G; 985-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2423 of 1999
Etc. Etc.
E
F
G
H
A
B
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 3 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.98 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No 3440 of 1998.
K.N. Rawal, C.S. Vaidyanathan, R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor
General, Harish N. Salve, P. Chidambaram, M.L. Verma, F.S. Nariman,
M.S. Syali, Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi Menon, S. Agarw~. Ranbir Chandra,
S.W.A. Quadri, C.V.S. Rao, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan,
Satyam Sethi, Naresh K. Sharma, Ratan Lal, K. Prakash Anand, Ms. Ekta
Kapil, S.K. Dwivedi, T.C. Sharma and Ms. Neelam Sharma for the appearing
parties.
C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
E
F
G
H
D.P. WADHWA, J. This batch of 12 appeals is directed against the
judgment dated December 1, 1998 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court interpreting Section 269-UC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short
the 'Act') and Rule 48-L and Form 37-1 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for
short, the 'Rules').
A number of writ petitions had been filed in the High Court by various·
parties challenging rejection of Form 37-1 by -the Appropriate Authority. High
Court by its impugned judgment allowed the petitions, set aside the orders
of the appropriate authority and requiring it to take fresh decision in each of
the cases in accordance with law and keeping in view the principles laid by
the High Court in its judgment. Aggrieved Appropriate Authority has filed
11 appeals. Mis. DLF Universal Ltd. (for short, 'DLF') has also filed one
appeal. It is aggrieved by that portion of the judgment of the High Court
where the High Court said "no objection by the Appropriate Authority based
on an agreement for transfer of property which is to be constructed cannot
):
be utilised for procuring a deed for transfer of that property which has been
constructed".
To understand the controversy between the parties and findings arrived
at by the High Court, we may examine facts in two cases, one pertaining to
DLF and the other to Mis. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (for short,
'Ansal'). Both DLF and Ansal are engaged in the business of developing and
dealing in real estate, constructing multistorey buildings and selling or letting
them. Ansal floated a scheme which was widely advertised inviting applications from the public for allotment of apartments. In one of the cases the
D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. v. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 975
scheme pertained to apartments in "Celebrity Homes", Palam VIhar~ Gurgaon.
One Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Kohli and his wife Mrs. Nibha Kohli applied on
July 13, 1995 for booking of an apartment. The application was in i-he form
prescribed by Ansal. The application contains details regarding the apartment
number, rates, accommodation available and payment plan. Initial deposit was
made at the time of booking of the apartment. Building had yet to come up
and payment was to be made as construction progressed. A formal agreement
incorporating the terms of sale of apartment was entered into on January 1,
1997. This agreement is in more details but incorporates all the terms of the
application for booking of the apartment which was accepted by Ansal. By
the time agreement dated January 1, 1997 was entered into, certain payment
as per the plan had already been made. In January 1997 itself, Ansal as
transferor and Kohlis as transferee filed Form 37-1 before the Appropriate
Authority seeking no objection to the registration of the apartment with the
registering authority. On March 13/14, 1997 Appropriate Authority sent a
notice to Ansal and Kohlis under Section 269-UC(4) pointing out certain
defects in Form 37-1 and requiring them to remove these defects within 15
days and not later than March 28, 1997 by filing revised Form 37-1. This was
replied to by Ansal by their letter dated March 27, 1997. However, by order
dated April 28/29, 1997 made under Section 269-UC(4) Appropriate Authority held that Form 37-1 had been belatedly filed in contravention of Rule
48-L and was not maintainable. In short, From 37-1 was rejected. It was
already held that From 37-I was defective inasmuch as particulars required
in Column 12 of Form 37-I had not been furnished. Ansal challenged the
order of the Appropriate Authority by filing writ petitions.
In the case of DLF, a scheme was advertised for sale of flats in
Richmond, a multistorey complex which was to come up in DLF Qutub
Enclave, Gurgaon. Mrs. Ranjana Singh applied for allotment of a flat by
making an application on April 9, 1997. DLF agreed to allot a flat to Mrs.
Singh. All the relevant terms and conditions find mention in the letter of
allotment. It gives the details of accommodation, mode of payment as and
when construction progressed 'and in the table for office use in the application
for allotment, details of the price etc., were all mentioned including the initial
payment received on making of the application. A more detailed agreement
called the "Apartment Buyers' Agreement" was then entered into on January
2, 1998. By this time, some payments towards construction of Richmond
apartments had already been made by Mrs. Singh. On January 30, 1998,
statement in Form 37-1 was filed by DLF and Mrs. Singh before the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000) 3 S.C.R.
Appropriate Authority. A notice under Section 269-UC(4) of the Act was
issued by the Appropriate Authority to both DLF and Mrs. Singh on April
2/3, 1998 requiring them to remove certain defects within 15 days failing
which it was intimated that Form 37-1 shall be deemed not to have been
furnished. DLF sent their reply on April 13, 1998 giving the relevant
information. However, by order dated April 30, 1998 passe<;l under Section
269-UC(4) of the Act Appropriate Authority held as under :
"It is the considered view of the Appropriate Authority that the
transaction would fall into sub-clause (ii) of clause 'd' of Section 269UA and once the property is not in existence, only the rights therein
can be transferred. Since the major terms and conditions were
fmalised on the date of booking/allotment, the form 37-1 should have
been filed within 15 days thereof. Since this was not so, the form is
treated as belated form. Further in absence of any power of condonation
of delay, the form has to be treated as non-maintainable."
This was challenged by DLF by filing writ petition in the High Court. These
are some of the bare details.
We may now examine certain provisions of law relevant to the issues
before us. Chapter XX-C consisting of Sections 269-U to 269-UO was
inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 1986 w.e.f. October l, 1986. This was
to·curb the menace of black money. The basic scheme of Chapter XX-C is
that the immovable property can be acquired by the Central Government if
the apparent consideration as agreed to between the transferor and the
transferee under agreement to sell does not represent the true market value
of the property. The provisions spread a wide not by expanding the definition
of immovable property and the transfer of such property. They envisage
transfer of immovable property yet to be constmcted. "Agreement for transfer'' is defined in clause (a)1 of Section 269-UA, "immovable property" in
I.
269-UA. (a) ~agreement for transfer" means an agreement, whether registered under the
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) oi not, for the transfer of any immovable property.
2.
269-UA (d) "imm<;>vable property" means, -
(i)
any land or any building or part of a building, and includes where any land « any
building or part of a building is to be transfei:red together with any machinery, plant,
furniture, fittings or other things, such machinery, plant, furniture, fittings « other
things also.
Explanation. For the puipOses of this sub-clause, "land, building, part of a
building machine.)', plant, furniture, fillings and other things" include any rights
therein,
D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. v. APPROPRIA1:E AUTHORITY [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 977
clause (d)2 and "transfer" in clause (f)3 thereof. For the performance of
provisions under Chapter XX-C, an Appropriate Authority is constituted
under Section 269-UB. Section 269-UC4 provides for restrictions on transfer
of immovable property. Under Rule 48L5 Form 37-1 is prescribed which is
to be filed before the Appropriate Authority signed by both the transferor and
the transferee within 15 days from the date on which the agreement for
transfer is entered into. This is the requirement of Rule 48-L of the Rules.
Section 269-UD6 deals with the order by Appropriate Authority for purchase
by the Central Government of immovable property subject matter of the
agreement to sell. This the Appropriate Authority does after examining Form
37-I. As to how the immovable property which is yet to be constructed could
vest in the Central Government after order by the Appropriate Authority is
mentioned in sub-sections (6)7 and (7)8 of Section 269-UE. If there is failure
on the part of the Central Government to make payment as required under
Section 269-UG, the property revests in the transferor as provided under
Section 269-UH. Section 269-UK.9 provides that after Form 37-1 has been
filed the agreement for transfer could not be revoked or altered. Section 269UL10 places restrictions on the registering authority from registering a deed
of transfer of immovable property unless no objection certificate has been
issued by the Appropriate Authority. When order for purpose of any immovable property by the Central Government is made, transferor is indemnified
(ii) any rights in or with respect to any land or any building or a part of a building
(whether or not including any machinecy, plant, furniture, fittings or other things
therein) which has been constructed or which is to be constructed accruing or arising
from any transaction whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares
in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of
any agreement or any arrangement of whatever nature), not being a transaction by
way of sale, exchange or lease of such land, building or part of a building.
269-UA(f) "transfer", -
(i)
in relation to any immovable property referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (d),
means transfer of such property by way of sale or exchange or lease for a term of
not less than twelve years, and including allowing the possession of such property
to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of nature referred to in
section 53-A of the Thinsfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882).
A
B
c
D
E
F
Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for
G
the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be deemed to be
a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term for
which such lease is to be granted and the further term or terms for which it can
be so extended is not less than twelve years;
(ii) in relation to any immovable property of the nature referred to in sub-clause (Ji)
of clause (d). means the doing of anything (whether by way of admitting as a
member of or by way of transfer of shares in a co-operative society or company
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 3 S.C.R.
A
from any claim that the transferee may have against him under the agreement
for transfer (Section 269-UM11). If we concentrate on the relevant provisions
of Chapter XX-C as applicable in the present appeals, it will be seen that
immovable property means any right in or with respect to any building or
part of a building which is yet to be constructed which right accrues or arises
B
from any transaction i11.cluding that by was -of any agreement or any arrangement of whatever nature or being a transaction by way of sale exchange or
or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or arrangement or in
any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling the
enjoyment of, such property.
4.
Restrictions 011 transfer of immovable property.
c
269-UC(J) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4
of 1882), or in any other law for the time being in force, no transfer of any
immovable property in such area and of such value exceeding five lakh rupees, as
may be prescribed, shall be effected except after an agreement for transfer is entered
into between the person who intends transferring the immovable property (hereinafter referred to as the transferor) and the person to whom it is proposed to
D
be transferred (hereinafter referred to as the transferee) in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (2) at least four months before the intended date of transfer.
(2)
The agreement referred to in sub-section (1) shall be reduced to writing in the form
of a statement by each of the parties to such transfer or by any of the parties to
such transfer acting on behalf of himself and on behalf of the other parties.
(3)
Evecy statement referred to in sub-section (2) shall,-
E
(i) be in the prescribed form;
(ii) set forth such particulars as may be prescribed, and
(iii) be verified. in the prescribed manner,
and shall be furnished to the appropriate authority in such manner and within such
time as may be prescribed, by each of the parties to such transaction or by any of
the parties to such transaction acting on behalf of himself and on behalf of the other
F
parties.
(4)
Where it is found that the statement referred to in sub-section (2) is defective, the
appropriate authority may intimate the defect to the parties concerned and give tham
an opportunity to rectify the defeat within a period of fifteen days from the date
of such intimation or within such further period which, on an appli&ation made in
this behalf, the appropriate authority may, in its discretion, allow and if the defect
is not rectified within the said period of fifteen days, or as the case may be, the further
G
period so allowed, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision
of this Cliapter •. the statement shall be! deemed never to have been furnished.
5.
Statement to be furnished under section 269-UC(J).
48-L. (1) The statement required to be furnished to the appropriate authority under subsection (3) ·of section 269-,UC shall be in Form No. 37-1 and shall be signed and
verified in the manner indicated therein by each of the parties to the transfer referred
to in sub-section (1) of that section or by any of the parties to such transfer acting
H
on behalf of himself and on behalf of the order parties.
·.
): 0
~
D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LID. v. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 979
lease of such building or part of a building. "Transfer'' in relation thereto
means the doing of anything including by way of an agreement or arrangement which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of such
immovable property; No transfer of immovable property shall be effected
except after an agreement for tr!lllsfer as defined in clause (a) of Section 269UA is entered into between the parties, i.e., the transferor and the transferee
at least four months before the intended date of transfer. This is so notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or in any
other law. This agreement for transfer. is now required to be reduced in writing
in the form of a statement by both the parties. The statement is to be in Form
37-1 and is to be furnished to the Appropriate Authority within 15 days from
the date on which agreement for transfer is entered into. If a defective
statement in Form 37-1 is filed Appropriate Authority is required to intimate
the defect to the parties concerned and give them an opportunity to rectify
the same within a period of 15 days or within such further period as may
be allowed by the appropriate authority. In case the statement remains
. defective, it shall be deemed never to have been furnished. If the statement
in Form 37-1 is proper, Appropriate Authority may make an order for
purchase of the ~ovable property, subject matter of Form 37-1, by the
(2)
The statement in Form No. 37-l shall be furnished, in duplicate, to the appropriate
A
B
c
D
authority
E
(a) .... .
{b) .... .
(c) before tl}e expiry of 15 days from the date on which the agreement for transfer
is entered into, in cases not covered by clauses (a) and (b).
6
Order by appropricm authority for purchase by Central Government of immovable
property.
F
269-UD(l) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (I-A) and (l-B), the appropriate
authority, after the receipt of the statement under sub-section (3) of section 269-UC
in respect of any immovable property, may, notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law or any instrument or any agreement for the time being in force, make
an order for the purchase by the. Central Government of such immovable property
at an amount· equal to the amount of apparent consideration :
·
Provided that no such order shall be made in respect of any immovable
G
property after the expiration of a period of two months from the end of the month
in which the statement referred to in section 269-UC in respect of such property
is received by the appropriate authority :
Provided further that where the statement referred to in section 269-UC in
respect of any immovable property is received by the appropriate authority on or ·
after the lst day of June, 1993, the provisions of the fust proviso shall have effect
as if for the words "two months", the words "three months" had been substituted.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2000] 3 S.C.R.
Central Government at the rate equal to the amount of ap}Jarent consideration.
In C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors., (1993) 199 ITR 530 this Court
laid down principles how the Appropriate Authority would apply its mind to
the term "apparent consideration". Tune limit has been laid by which the
Appropriate Authority has to make an order for purchase by the Central.
Government of the immovable property. After an order is made, immovable
property vests in the Central Government in terms of the agreement for
transfer referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 269-UC. When the order
is made under Section 269-UD(l) in respect of an immovable property being
rights of the nature referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of Section 269UA the order shall have the effect of vesting such right in the Central
Government and placing the Central Government in the same position in
relation to such rights as the person in whom such a right would have
continued to vest if such order had not been made. After statement in Form
37-1 has been filed under Sectioll" 269-UC terms of agreement for transfer
cannot be altered unless of course no order has been made by the appropriate
authority for purchase of the immovable property by the Central Government
Provided also that the period of limitation referred to in the second proviso
shall be reckoned, where any defect as referred to in sub-section ( 4) of section 269UC has been intimated, with reference to the date of receipt of the rectified statement
by the appropriate authority :
·
Provided also that in a case where the statement referred to in section 269UC in. respect of the immovable property concerned is given to an appropriate
authority, other than the appropriate authority having jurisdiction in accordance with
the provisions of section 269-UB to make the order referred to in this sub-section
in relation to the immovable property concerned, the period of limitation referred
to in the first and .second provisos shall be reckoned with reference to the date of
receipt of the statement by the appropriate authority having jurisdiction to make the
order under this sub-section.
·
Provided also that the period of limitation reference to in the second proviso
shall be reckoned, where any say has been granted by any court against the passing
of an order for the purchase of the immovable property under this Chapter, with
reference to the date of vacation of the said stay.
(1-A) Before making an order under sub-section (I), the appropriate authority shall
give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the transferor, . the person in
occupation of the immovable property if the transferor is not in occupation of the
property, the transferee and to every other person whom the appropriate authority
knows to be interested in the property.
(JB) Every order ma4e by the appropriate authority under sub-section (1) shall
specify the grounds on which it is made.
(2) The appropriate authority shall cause a copy of its order under sub-section (I)
in respect of ~ny immovable property to be served on the transferor, the person in
occupation of the immovable property if the transferor is not in occupation thereof,
D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. v. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 981
·--4
or the order if any made stands abrogated under Section (1) of Section 269A
UH. Any transfer of immovable property made in contravention thereof shall
be void. Registering Officer under the Registration Act 1908 is forbidden to
register any document for transfer of immovable property unless a certificate
from the appropriate authority that it has no objection to the transfer of such
immovable property is furnished. There is also a prohibition on any person
B
from 148 any act which has the effect or transferring any immovable property
unless the Appropriate Authority certifies that there is no objection thereto.
In case no order for purchase by the Central Government is made by the
Appropriate Authority or its order stands abrogated, it shall issue a certificate
of no objection for transfer of the property. Where an order for the purchase
of immovable property by the Central Government is made, no claim by the
c
transferee shall lie against the transferor by reason of such transfer not being
in accordance with the agreement for the transfer of immovable property
entered into between the parties.
There is no dispute that agreement for transfer, which has been reduced
D
into writing in Form 37-1, pertains to immovable property and amounts to
transfer of immovable property within the meaning of clauses (d) and (t) of
the transferee, and on every other person whom the appropriate authority knows to
be interested in the property.
7.
269-UF (6) Where an order under sub-section (1) of section 269-UD is made in respect
>-
of an immovable property, being rights of the nature referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause
E
(d) of section 269-UA, such order shall have the effect of -
(a) vesting such right in the Central Government, and
(b) placing in Central Government in the same position in relation to such rights
as the person in whom such a right would have continued to vest if such order had
not been made.
8.
269-UE (7) Where any rights in respect of any immovable property, being rights in, or
F
with respect to, any land or any building or part of a building which has been constructed
J..
or which is to be constructed, have been vested in the Central Government under subsection (6), the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) shaU so far as may be,
have effect as if the references to immovable property therein were references to such
land or building or part thereof, as the case may be.
....
9 .
Restrictions on revocation or alteration of certain agreements for the transfer of immovable property or on transfer of certain immovable property.
G
269-UK (l) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
-1
force, no person shall revoke or alter an agreement for the transfer of an immovable
property or transfer such property in respect of which a statement has been furnished
under section 269-UC unless, -
(a) the appropriate authority has not made an order for the purchase of the
immovable property by the Central Government under section 269-UD and the
period specified for the making of such order has expired; or
H
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 3 S.C.R.
A
Section 269•UA. High Court, after examining the terms of the agreement and
)-
.;:._
the provisks of Chap'ter XX-C, reached various findings in paragraph 28
of the ju~
ent, which we reproduce :
"To sum up, our findings are :
B
(i)
Agreement for transfer as defined in clause (a) of Section 269UA refers to an agreement which is entered into privately
between the parties thereto; such an agreement may be oral or
in writing.
(ii)
An agreement for transfer entered into by the parties in Form
c
37-1 under Section 269-UC is not an agreement defmed by
clause (a) of Section 269 UA. It is an agreement statutorily
ordained to be entered into in a prescribed proforma.
(iii) Agreement for transfer, the phrase as occurring in Chapter XXD
C has two meanings depending on the context where it occurs.
It may be an agreement for transfers defmed in Clause (a) of
Section 269-UA (which in this judgment has been refereed to
as private agreement). It may be an agreement for transfer as
defmed in Section 269-lJC (which in this. judgment has been
E
(b) in a case where an order for the purchase of the immovable property by the
....
Central Government has been made under sub-section (I) of section 269-UD, the
order stands abrogated under sub-section (I) of section 269-UH.
(2)
Any transfer of any immovable property made in contravention of the provisions
of sub-section (I) shall be void.
IO
Restrictions on registration, etc. of docwnents in respect of transfer of immovable property
F
269-Ul (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, no registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908),
...\
shall register any document which purports to transfer immovable property. exceeding the value prescribed under section 296-UC unless a certificate from the appropriate authority that it has no objection to the tran~fer of such property for an amount
equal to the apparent consideration therefor as stated in the agreement for transfer
....
of the immovable property in respect of which it has received. a statement under subG
section (3) of Section 269-UC, is furnished along with such document.
(2)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in foi:ce,
no person shall do anything or omit to do anything which will have the effect of
~
transfer of any immovable property unless the appropriate authority certifies that it
has no objection to the transfer of such property for an amount equal to the apparent
consideration thereof as stated in the agreement for transfer of the immovable
H
property in respect of which it has received a statement under sub-section (3) of
section 269-UC.
-
D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LID. v. APPROPRIA1E AUTHORITY [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 983
called a proforma agreement). Since the agreement for transfer
under Section 269-UC is to be drawn up in the form of a
statement, in Chaprer XX-C, the word 'statement' has been used
interchangeably with agreement for transfer in Form 37-1.
"Agreement for transfer" as occurring in Section 269-UKI,
Section 269-UM and Section 269-UD is to be assigned the
meaning as defined by Clause (a) of Section 269-UA. At all the
other places in Chapter XX-C, agreement for transfer means and
must be read as proforma agreement i.e., an agreement for
transfer in the prescribed form 37-1 as the context so requires.
(iv) The Appropriate Authority cannot be found fault with refusing
to act upon or take cognisance of proforma agreement in
statement form 37 -1 (i) if the requisite particulars though
available are not supplied or (ii) if the requisite particulars
would be available at the time when the property has reached
a state in which it is proposed to be transferred and yet the
particulars are not being made available with precision because
the form is being filed with a view to secure NOC for a transfer
in contemplation.
(v)
A delay in filing Form 37-1 is not a defect. The Period of 15
A
B
c
D
days prescribed by Rule 48-L is directory and not mandatory.
E
(vi) The period of 15 days is to be calculated from the date of
entering into the proforma agreement in Form 37-1 and not from
(3)
In a case where the appropriate authority does not make an order under sub-section
(I) of section 269-UD for the purchase by the Central Government of an immovable
p
property, or where the order made under sub-section (I) of section 269-UD stands
abrogated under sub-section (I) of section 269-UH, the appropriate authority shall
issue a certificate of no objection referred to in sub-section (1) or, as the case may
be, sub-section (2) and deliver copies thereof to the transferor and the transferee.
11. Immunity to transferor against claims of transferee for transfer.
269-UM Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or any instrument or any
agreement for the time being in force, when an order for the purchase of any
G
immovable property by the Central Government is made under this Chapter, no claim
by the transferee shall lie against the transferor by reason of such transfer being not
in accordance with the agreement for the transfer of the immovable property entered
into between the transferor and transferee :
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply if the order for the
purchase of the immovable property by the CentlaI Government is abrogated under
sub-section (1) of section 296-UH.
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2000] 3 S.C.R.
A
the date of any other proceeding private agreement between the
).... c
parties.
(viit If there are agreement more than one entered into between the
parties, then it is the latest of the agreement which supersedes
B
the earlier ones which has to accompany form 37-1 when filing
before the Appropriate Authority. Other agi:-eements if relevant
may or !ooked into by the Appropriate Authority.
(viii) A defect contemplated by Section 269-UC(4) is one which is
capable is being cured.
c
(ix) The stage for entering into the statutory agreement or proforma
agreement in Form 37-1 arises wqen the parties are ready to
make available all the particulars contemplated by several
clauses of Form 37-1 consistently with the nature of the prop-
~-
D
erty. The date of entering into the proforma agreement must
have proximity of relationship by time with the proposed
transfer of property as defined in clause (f) of Sec. 269-UA The
test for determining proximity of relationship is the availability
of the property agreed to be transferred in such statuS in which
E
it is proposed to be transferred.
,.._
(x)
A no objection issued by appropriate authority based on an
agreement for transfer of property to be constructed cannot be
utilised for securing registration of property which has been
constructed."
F
Agreement for transfer and statement in Form 37-1 are two different
documents.