JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 26466 of 2020 challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 6.10.2021, whereby the writ petition was allowed holding as follows: “9. In the light of this finding, according to me, there cannot be any such restriction on alienation in the sale-deed. Admittedly there is no case to the respondents that any amount is due to the respondents as on today. In such circumstances there cannot be any such condition in the sale-deed. 10. As far as the second contention about the enhancement of land value is concerned, this Court directed the Standing Counsel to find out whether there is any enhancement of land value by any competent authority or by Court. The Standing Counsel, after getting instructions, submitted that there is no amount to be paid by the petitioners towards compensation for enhanced land value as on today. If that is the case, such clauses are not necessary in the sale-deed. 11. The third apprehension raised by the respondents is that if this Court interferes with the clauses in the sale-deed, the others will also come before this Court and there will be difficulty to the respondents. I think this is not at all a reason to reject a rightful claim of the petitioners. If there is any illegality, parties will approach the court and they will redress their grievance from the court. Apprehending that the others will approach this Court, this Court cannot deny a legal right. Therefore, according to me, the contentions raised by the respondents will not stand. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (1) The respondents will execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners for Plot No. II/5 without including clauses 6.3 and 6.4 in Ext.P3 draft sale-deed, if all other conditions are complied by the petitioners. (2) The sale-deed will be executed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if there is no other legal impediment.” It is challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the appeal is filed. 2. (2) The sale-deed will be executed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if there is no other legal impediment.” It is challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the appeal is filed. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: Petitioners applied for a Type-B residence at Edathala Housing Scheme, launched by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, first appellant, which was known as Edathala Housing Scheme-Phase II, for which acquisition was made under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Town Planning Act in force. In that course of action, property situated in Re-Sy. No. 324/12.22.23, in Block No. 35 of Aluva East Village, Aluva Taluk was acquired intending to construct houses and to sell such houses for residential accommodation in accordance with the Edathala Housing Scheme Prepared. 3. Petitioners were allotted a house under Type-II category. Petitioners paid an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards sale price and the sale price was estimated at Rs. 8,68,525/- out of which an amount of Rs. 7,70,000/- was towards building cost and Rs. 98,525/- towards price of the property. Therefore, after adjusting advance payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- the balance sale price of Rs. 5,68,525/- together with interest @ 9% per annum was calculated for repayment in 300 equated monthly installments of Rs. 4772/- each. Accordingly, the agreement regarding repayment was executed by and between the parties in the month of May, 2008 and from 2008 onwards the petitioners along with family are residing in the house and have been paying the installments without any default. The entire amount as per the agreement was paid and the loan account was closed. Therefore, a sale-deed has to be executed by the Greater Cochin Development Authority. But, the Greater Cochin Development Authority is insisting on certain conditions including that the property shall not be sold for a period of 10 years, to be incorporated in the sale-deed, which according to the petitioners are absolutely illegal. 4. The case projected by the petitioner in the writ petition is that if the sale-deed is executed with such clauses insisted by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, that will be an absolute restriction on the enjoyment of the property. It was in the above background the writ petition was filed. 5. 4. The case projected by the petitioner in the writ petition is that if the sale-deed is executed with such clauses insisted by the Greater Cochin Development Authority, that will be an absolute restriction on the enjoyment of the property. It was in the above background the writ petition was filed. 5. The learned Single Judge, after conducting a deep rooted survey of the agreement executed by and between the parties, and after specifically referring to clauses 6.3 and 6.4 of Exhibit P3 agreement, it was held that since the entire amount is paid as per the agreement, and the amount towards the enhanced land value due to the owners of the property from whom acquisition was made, the Greater Cochin Development Authority has no manner of right to insist for any condition in the matter of execution of sale-deed. 6. We have heard, Sri. Vipin P. Vargehse learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rajesh Vijayan for the writ petitioners and perused the pleadings and material on record. 7. It is an admitted fact that the entire amount due as per Exhibit P3 agreement was paid by the writ petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that the amount due from the petitioners towards enhanced land value was also paid by the petitioners. In fact, the learned Single Judge, in order to identify as to whether any further amount is due from the writ petitioners, the Standing Counsel was directed to take instructions and on instructions, it was submitted that no amounts are due from the petitioners, which is recorded in the judgment. 8. Clauses 6.3 and 6.4 of Exhibit P3 agreement reads thus: “6.3 The vendee shall be entitled to sell, mortgage or otherwise dispose of the said property subject to the conditions in Para-4 provided, however, that such transferee of the vendee shall also be bound by the covenants contained in Article 2. 6.4 The Vendee shall not part with the property or alienate it either by lease, mortgage or transfer to any other person within 10 years from the date of Execution of the sale-deed of the house without the prior consent of the Secretary of the Vendor.” 9. 6.4 The Vendee shall not part with the property or alienate it either by lease, mortgage or transfer to any other person within 10 years from the date of Execution of the sale-deed of the house without the prior consent of the Secretary of the Vendor.” 9. It is true that the aforesaid conditions were included in the agreement basically for the reason that after allotment of the property and the building, there was every likelihood that the owners of the property secure orders for enhancement of land value as per the reference pending before the courts below under the Land Acquisition Act, then in force. 10. The learned Single Judge found from the counter affidavit of the appellants that, it is clear that such a restrictive clause is made in the agreement against sale of the property for a period of ten years to tide over a situation of pending claims of the landlords of the property acquired. It is the admitted case of the Greater Cochin Development Authority that the enhanced land value was also paid by the petitioners. Therefore, there is no necessity to continue the clause in the sale-deed. 11. The sole question to be considered is whether the findings rendered by learned Single Judge is to be interfered in any manner. In our considered opinion, when there is no amount due from the petitioners to the Greater Cochin Development Authority and since the Greater Cochin Development Authority is not indebted to owners of the properties in regard to payment of any enhanced land value, it is not proper on the part of the Greater Cochin Development Authority to still insist for incorporating a restrictive clause for sale of the property, for a period of ten years from the date of execution of the sale-deed without its permission. We also do not really think that without any authority over the property, the appellants can incorporate such prohibitory conditions in the agreement. Therefore, in our considered opinion the learned Single Judge was right in reading down the impelling conditions in the agreement extracted above to mean that; such a restrictive covenant was incorporated anticipating amounts remaining due from the transferee at the time of execution of the sale-deed and since no amounts are due the clause has virtually become inconsequential and redundant. 12. 12. Moreover, Article 300A of the Constitution clearly specifies that no citizen can be deprived of his property, save by authority of law. We are of the view that the term deprivation takes in any manner of restrictive conditions in any agreement interfering with the absolute right of a property owner and therefore, without authority of law no covenant can also remain in any agreement to the disadvantage and detriment of the petitioners. It is equally important to note that section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dealing with condition restraining alienation, specifies that where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him. Therefore, if and when a condition is incorporated in the sale-deed requiring the owner of the property to seek permission of the 1st appellant, enabling the 1st appellant to decline permission, it is nothing but a limitation created interfering with the absolute concluded rights in favour of the petitioners so as to enjoy the property at their choice. Thinking so, the demand of the appellants to the petitioners to incorporate the covenant in question can only be said to be totally unconscionable and illegal. 13. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual and legal circumstances, we do not think that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has any jurisdictional error or any other legal infirmity justifying our interference in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. Needless to say, appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.