Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 860 (HP)

Renuka Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-30

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Directing the respondents to allow registration and register mutations in the names of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, who are Himachal Agriculturists, as their sale deeds have already been duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Baddi (Respondent No. 3); (ii) Directing the respondents to register sale deeds of the flats purchased by petitioners No. 3 to 6 who are Himachal Agriculturists, in housing colony known as Himachal One, Malku Majra-Opposite Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh; (iii) Directing the respondents to desist from creating any hurdle in the registration of mutations and registration of sale deeds in relation to flats purchased by the petitioners/Himachal Agriculturists who are similarly situated, in project known as ‘Himachal One’ at Malku Majra, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, as detailed in the writ petition; and (iv) Direct the respondents not to create any hurdle in the sale, purchase, gift, mortgage/any other mode of transfer permissible in law as the petitioners who are bonafide Himachal Agriculturists are allottees/owners in possession of flats.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that they have purchased flats in terms of Apartment Buyer Agreements in a Project duly approved and sanctioned by the respondent-State. They are Himachali Agriculturists. They purchased the flats from respondent No. 7 in Baddi. According to the petitioners, they made inquiries before purchasing the flats and verified the fact that the project proponent had constructed the flats after grant of permission by the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act over land measuring 26-19 bighas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 602,603,604,605,606,607,608,610 and 611 at Malku Majra, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P., which was duly purchased by the project proponent as per permission granted under Section 118 of the Act vide registered Sale Deed(s) dated 16.05.2007, appended with the petition as Annexure P-7. 3. As per the petitioners, after verifying the veracity of respondent No. 7 and permission granted for the construction of the flats constructed by the private respondent, they entered into agreement to sell with the private respondent. The entire sale consideration was duly paid to the private respondent and sale deeds were also registered by two petitioners. 3. As per the petitioners, after verifying the veracity of respondent No. 7 and permission granted for the construction of the flats constructed by the private respondent, they entered into agreement to sell with the private respondent. The entire sale consideration was duly paid to the private respondent and sale deeds were also registered by two petitioners. However, now the Revenue Authorities are refusing the attestation of mutation in the revenue records in favour of said petitioners, who have entered into registered sale deeds with the private respondent. Authorities are also refusing registration of sale deed(s) qua other petitioners, on the plea that as the private respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the permission which was granted to the said respondent under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act) and as proceedings stand initiated against the said respondent for violation of Section 118 of the Act, therefore, sale deeds cannot be registered and in those cases wherein sale deeds have been registered, the mutation cannot be attested. It is in this background that the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are the victims of circumstances. He submitted that there is no fault on the part of the petitioners, as they purchased the flats from the private respondent, who was duly permitted by the concerned Government Agency after grant of permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act to construct these flats. He further submitted that the petitioners have raised loans for purchasing the flats and the Institutions/Banks from whom the petitioners have taken loans are threatening to recall the loans and have also started levying penal charges on the housing loans raised by the petitioners on account of non-submission of registered sale deeds/mortgages. He referred to Annexure P-22, which are copies of Notices/Mails issued by the Banks. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that a Show Cause Notice dated 02.05.2024 (Annexure P-21) was issued to the private respondent by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan qua the alleged violation of the permission granted to the said respondent under Section 118 of the Act. He referred to Annexure P-22, which are copies of Notices/Mails issued by the Banks. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that a Show Cause Notice dated 02.05.2024 (Annexure P-21) was issued to the private respondent by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan qua the alleged violation of the permission granted to the said respondent under Section 118 of the Act. He submitted that in the light of the fact that no illegality was committed by the petitioners and further the flats purchased by the petitioners have not been constructed by violating any of the permissions or conditions granted in favour of the private respondent under Section 118 of the Act, the petition be allowed as prayed for and the respondents be directed to register the sale deeds of the petitioners, which as of today have not been registered and attest mutations qua those petitioners, whose sale deeds have already been registered. 5. Learned Advocate General submitted that the reason as to why the sale deeds/mutations are not being registered/attested is that the private respondent has violated the permission which was granted in favour of the said respondent under Section 118 of the Act. Learned Advocate General referred to the Show Cause Notice dated 2 nd May, 2024 and submitted that the private respondent was granted permission by the State to purchase land in question for development of housing colony within the time period of two years. However, the private respondent failed to utilize larger portion of the land in terms of permission granted under Section 118. It transferred 10- 10 bighas of land to BBNDA and sold not only 10-10 bighas of land, but also sold land by carving out 70 plots to different persons without permission of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, the private respondent failed to utilize larger portion of the land in terms of permission granted under Section 118. It transferred 10- 10 bighas of land to BBNDA and sold not only 10-10 bighas of land, but also sold land by carving out 70 plots to different persons without permission of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Learned Advocate General submitted that though the petitioners were not the beneficiaries of the illegalities committed by the private respondent, however, as the flats purchased by the petitioners are situated on the land which was purchased by the private respondent on the strength of permission granted under Section 118 of the Act, therefore, once the terms and conditions of permission have been violated, the entire land which was purchased by the private respondent is liable to be vested in the State and it is for this reason that the sale deeds of the petitioners are not being registered and mutations are not being attested, because the entire land is to vest with the State of Himachal Pradesh. 6. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the private respondent, who submitted that the private respondent has not violated the permission granted to him under Section 118 of the Act; and have also perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 7. It is not in dispute that the land upon which the flats purchased by the petitioners are situated, was purchased by the private respondent after grant of permission under Section 118 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the private respondent is duly registered with H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority as a Promoter for developing a colony and constructing apartments under the Scheme framed by the Authority under the Himachal Pradesh Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 2005. Copy of the Registration Certificate is on record as Annexure P-2. 8. The flats were purchased by the petitioners on the basis of Brochure issued by the private respondent Annexure P-1. There are in all six petitioners before this Court. Petitioners Renuka Kumari and Bhavna Kalia have already executed the sale deeds which were duly registered by the Sub-Registrar and as far as they are concerned, attestation of mutations in their favour qua said property are pending. There are in all six petitioners before this Court. Petitioners Renuka Kumari and Bhavna Kalia have already executed the sale deeds which were duly registered by the Sub-Registrar and as far as they are concerned, attestation of mutations in their favour qua said property are pending. Petitioner Renuka Kumari executed sale deed with the private respondent on 09.04.2024 qua Flat No. A2/201 and petitioner Bhavna Kalia executed sale deed with the private respondent on 28.02.2024 qua Flat No. A3/202. As far as petitioners Ajay Rana, Laxmi Devi, Madhu Vashisht and Ashok Kumar are concerned, registration of their sale deeds is pending and the dates of agreement to sell entered by said petitioners with the private respondent are as under:- Name Date of agreement Flat No. Sh. Ajay Rana 14.03.2016 A3/10 Smt. Laxmi Devi 30.09.2020 A4/10 Smt. Madhu Vashisht 08.12.2023 A3/30 Mr. Ashok Kumar 14.03.2016 A3/40 9. Be that as it may, as it was not disputed during the course of arguments on behalf of the State that the flats purchased by the petitioners were constructed in accordance with the permission accorded to the private respondent by the Authorities concerned, this Court is not dwelling upon this aspect of the matter. 10. Suffice to say that, all that this Court is required to decide is that, in the peculiar facts of the case, whether the act of the respondent- State of not registering the sale deeds as far as few petitioners are concerned and not attesting the mutations in favour of certain petitioners is justified in law or not. 11. The submission of learned Advocate General was that because these flats have been constructed on the land which was purchased by the private respondent, in terms of the permission granted to him under Section 118 of the Act, therefore, the entire land is required to be confiscated, including the land on which the flats are constructed and, so, the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs being prayed for. 12. This Court does not concurs with the learned Advocate General. 12. This Court does not concurs with the learned Advocate General. Petitioners have bonafidely acted upon the Brochure published by the private respondent qua sale of flats and further in light of the fact that the flats per se have not been constructed by violating the provisions of Section 118 of the Act, the omission on the part of the private respondent qua other part of the land, part whereof was gifted to BBNDA and also sold by carving out plots, cannot act to the prejudice of the petitioners. 13. If the private respondent has violated the terms of the permission granted under Section 118 of the Act, then said respondent has to face the consequences. However, petitioners, as already observed hereinabove, cannot be made to suffer for the said act of the private respondent. 14. If the Authorities do come to the conclusion that there indeed is violation of the permission granted to the private respondent under Section 118 of the Act, they can proceed against the private respondent in accordance with law, qua the land vis-à-vis which the violation is proved. As far as the land on which the flats are constructed, the respondent-State can recover the sale price of the Units like those sold to the petitioners from the private respondent, however, these flats cannot be allowed to vest with the State Government for alleged violation of the permission by the private respondent to the prejudice of the petitioners. If this is permitted, then great prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, for the reason that they will be made to suffer for the alleged acts of omission on the part of respondent No. 7. In fact, it is not understood as to what prevented the respondent-State from highlighting the fact that the private respondent had violated the provisions of Section 118 of the Act and any purchaser of the flats etc., be aware of this fact. The petitioners were never put to any notice by the Authorities about the alleged illegalities committed by the private respondent. The petitioners were never put to any notice by the Authorities about the alleged illegalities committed by the private respondent. In terms of the record, proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 7 only on 02.05.2024, whereas, all the petitioners had entered into agreement to purchase the respective flats much before that.The petitioners invested their life long earnings for the purchase of flats, as was urged before this Court and some compassion, in the peculiar facts of the case, is expected from the State. This Court is not even remotely suggesting that the violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the Act should be condoned. What this Court is suggesting, is that for the alleged wrong committed by the private respondent, the petitioners should not be made to suffer, as this would amount to great injustice to the petitioners, who on one hand would be deprived of the flats that have been purchased by them and on the other hand, they will also be deprived of their hard earned money which has already been paid by them to the private respondent. 15. Accordingly, in the light of the observations, this petition is allowed and it is ordered that the respondents-Authorities shall forthwith execute the sale deed qua the flats of the petitioners whose sale deeds have not been registered till date and thereafter, attest mutations and similarly, they shall also attest the mutations in favour of those petitioners whose mutations have not been attested till date. Needful will be done within a period of eight weeks from today. This Court makes it clear that it has not made any observations qua allegations of the respondent-State against the private respondent of violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the Act and the proceedings which have been initiated against the private respondent in this regard be decided by the Authorities concerned in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this judgment. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.