Delhi High Court
Savitri Devi & Ors vs State Of Govt. Of Nct & Ors on 11 August, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 11th August, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 7941/2013
SAVITRI DEVI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Raj Kumar Sehrawat, Adv.
Versus
STATE OF GOVT. OF NCT & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Jayendra, Adv. for R-1 and 3.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners are seeking directions
against respondents to issue formal letter of NOC and for direction
against the respondent No.3, i.e. Sub-Registrar to execute the sale deed as
and when presented by the petitioners.
2. Mr.Raj Kumar Sehrawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that the petitioners made an application under
Section 8 of Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 (hereinafter
to be referred as 'the Act'), the same is as under:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, where any document
required to be registered under the provisions of
clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-Section (1) of Section
17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908),
purports to transfer b y sale, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise any land or part thereof referred to in
Section 4, no registering officer appointed under that
Act shall register any such document unless the
transfer or produces before such registering officer a
permission in writing of the competent authority for
such transfer".
3. Learned counsel submits that at the time of filing the petition, the
petitioners had no knowledge of the application under Section 8 of the
Act being rejected by the respondents.
4. He further submits that under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short 'LA Act'), NOC is required for the purpose if the
Govt. has any proposal to acquire land under Section 6 of LA Act.
However, there is no such notification under Sections 4 and 6 of LA Act
as noted above. Therefore, the respondent's Authority was supposed to
give NOC on moving the application for the said purpose.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced Form P-4 of
Khasra Girdawri 2013-14, issued by the Patwari on 23.04.2014, wherein
the names of the petitioners have been indicated.
6. It is established that the property of the petitioners are not under the
proposal to acquire. Moreover, the mutation proceedings have been
decided in favour of the petitioners upheld by the Financial
Commissioner vide its order dated 31.07.2014.
7. In view of above noted facts, rejection dated 23.01.2014 has no
bearing as it is nowhere mentioned in the said rejection letter that the land
in question, i.e., Khasra Nos.75 (4-16), 76 (4-16), 77 (4-16), 78 Min (1-
16), 155 (4-16), 230 (1-12), 232 (4-13), 233 (4-12), 339 (4-10), 340
(2-03), 227 (4-16), 228 (4-16), 231 (1-08), 336 (3-09), total (52-19) in
Village Mohd. Pur, Ramzan Pur, Delhi, is under proposal to acquire
under Land Acquisition Act.
8. Hence, I am of the considered view that there is no requirement of
NOC from the concerned Authority.
9. Consequently, order dated 23.01.2014 is hereby set aside and the
sub-Registrar-III is directed to register sale deed of the petitioners.
10. The instant petition is allowed on above terms.
11. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 11, 2014
neelam
