K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order No. R B. ULC. SR. 551/76-77 dated 22-12-1976 of the Deputy commissioner, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the D. C.) (Annexure-C ). ( 2 ) AMONG others, petitioner No. 1 who is the owner of residential premises and the land appertaining thereto bearing ct. S. No. 1679 situated at Kirloskar road, Belgaum, entered into an agreement to sell the same to petitioner No. 2. Before executing the sale deed, the petitioners on 29-9-1976 applied to the D. C. for permission to sell the same under S. 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act of 1976 (Central Act No. 33 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the act ). On 29-9-1976 the D. C. refused the permission sought by the petitioners and has exercised the option to purchase the same and on 12-10-1976 he has communicated them the said order. In view of the said order of the D. C. , respondent no. 2 has refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners. ( 3 ) FROM the above dates, it is clear that the order was not made by the D. C. within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, much less was it communicated within that time. In their return also, the respondents do not dispute the same. ( 4 ) SRI K. I. Bhatta, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on the failure of the D. C. to make an order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, there was a deemed grant of the same and respondent No. 2 was bound to register the document. ( 5 ) SRI M. H. Motigi, learned High court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents supported the order of the D C. ( 6 ) A transfer of an urban or an urbanisable land with a building or a portion thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, or lease for a period exceeding 10 years can only be made with the permission of the competent authority, for which purpose an application in the prescribed from is required to be made (vide section 27 (1) and (2) of the Act ). Sub-section (3) of section 27 of the Act empowers the authority to cither grant or refuse such application. ( 7 ) SUB-SECTION (4) of section 27 of the act that prescribes the period within which an application should be refused and the consequences that ensue on the failure to make an order, that alone is material for the case reads thus:"where within a period of sixty days of the date of receipt of an application under this section the competent authority does not refuse to grant the permission applied for or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the competent authority shall be deemed to have granted the permission 'applied for. "section 27 of the Act which places restrictions on the powers of the citizens to enjoy their property must be construed strictly. ( 8 ) SECTION 27 (4) of the Act stipulates the period within which an application made under section 27 (1) is required to be considered and refused by the competent authority. An application for permission in the event of refusal is required to be made and communicated by the competent authority within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the application by that authority. On the failure of the authority to make an order and communicate within the stipulated period, section 27 (4) declares the permission sought for is granted by the authority in favour of the applicant. In the instant case on the failure of the D. C. to make an order within 60 days there was such a deemed grant in favour of the petitioner. ( 9 ) WHEN once the power to refuse an application is lost, for whatever reason It may be, that power is lost once and for all and cannot be exercised after the expiry of the period specified by the Act. On the expiry of the specified period an applicant gets who gets what is a deemed grant in his favour, has an absolute right to deal with the property and the registering authority is bound to register the document that is presented before him by the parties. ( 10 ) FROM the above, It follows that the order of the D. C. is wholy without jurisdiction and the action of respondent no, 2 in refusing to register the documeant is manifestly illegal. ( 10 ) FROM the above, It follows that the order of the D. C. is wholy without jurisdiction and the action of respondent no, 2 in refusing to register the documeant is manifestly illegal. ( 11 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I quash the order No. R. B. ULC. SR. 551/76-77 dated 22-12-1976 of the deputy Commissioner, Belgaum (Annexure-C) and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 2 to register the document presented by the petitioners for conveyance of the property bearing C T. S. No. 1679 of Kirloskar road, Belgaum from petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2. ( 12 ) RULE issued is made absolute. ( 13 ) IN the circumstance of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .