A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna dismissed a civil appeal filed by the state claiming society premiums on account of certain government resolutions which entitled the state to fetch premiums in case the state has allotted lands for the formation of co-operative societies. The bench noticed that the land was first allotted to a builder on lease and later converted into a cooperative society and hence, the resolutions will not be applicable.
Facts:
The respondents-original writ petitioners had filed the writ petition challenging the letter dated 27th June 2000 addressed by the Collector to the Sub-Registrar, Bombay City, which directed the Sub-Registrar not to register any transaction in respect of transfer of flats in the buildings situated in B.B.R. Block Nos. 3 and 5 without obtaining a “No Objection Certificate” from the Collector. In the year 1971, the State Government had invited offers for the lease of Plot Nos.93, 94, 99, 100 and 121 from Block V Back Bay Reclamation Estate. In response to the said notice, one M/s. Aesthetic Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “said builder”) had made a bid for Plot No. 121 (Old) or 119 (New), which was accepted and the State Government granted a licence to the said builder to enter upon the plot and construct a building in accordance with the plans of the Municipal Corporation. On the said plot, a twenty-two-storey building was constructed by the Company and the flats were sold to various parties on an ownership basis. An occupation certificate in respect of the said building was issued.
The subject matter of the present dispute is Plot No. 211, which was sold to one Mr A. Madhavan. After the completion of the building in the year 1977, the purchasers of the flats formed a Co-operative Society called Varuna Premises. Mr A. Madhavan sold his rights in the said flat to one Mrs Reshmidevi Agarwal. On 16th December 2000, respondent No.1 entered into an agreement with Mrs Reshmidevi Agarwal to purchase rights to occupy Flat No. 211 as also five shares in the Society. When respondent No.1 approached the Sub-Registrar Office for registration, he was declined the registration and directed to secure a “No Objection Certificate” from the Collector. Against the above backdrop, respondents approached the High Court by way of the writ petition. It was the contention of the State that in view of Government Resolution dated 12th May 1983 (for short “1983 Resolution”) and Government Resolution dated 9th July 1999 (for short “1999 Resolution”), the State was entitled to claim the premium as a condition for grant of permission for the transfer of the flats. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved thereby, the State has approached this Court by way of the present appeal.
Observations of the Court:
The court acknowledged that it is after the said builder sold the flats to the individual buyers, they formed a Co-operative Society in the year 1977 in which Society the ownership of the land came to be transferred by the said builder. It could thus be seen that the present case is not a case where the land is allotted to a Co-operative Society by the Government. The land was leased out to the builder, who was the successful bidder and after the ownership of flats was transferred to the private individuals, a Society of the flat owners was formed. Since the land was not allotted to society but to a builder on a lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Co-operative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society.
Decision:
The appeals were dismissed. The interim stay of the direction for a refund of the amount granted by this Court stood vacated.
Case: The State of Maharashtra and others vs. Aspi Chinoy and another
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5809 of 2011
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: September 30th, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
