Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lrs Of Amrik Singh vs Lrs Of Shankar (2025:Rj-Jd:15220) on 21 March, 2025

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2025:RJ-JD:15220]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR



                 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 95/2025

1.       Lrs Of Amrik Singh, S/o Bhagat Singh
1/1.     Paramjeet Kaur W/o Amrik Singh, Aged About 67 Years,
         R/o 01 Nwm, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.
1/2.     Gurjindra Singh S/o Amrik Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
         R/o 01 Nwm, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.
1/3.     Devendra Singh S/o Amrik Singh, Aged About 45 Years,
         R/o 01 Nwm, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.
1/4.     Bhupendra Singh S/o Amrik Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
         R/o 01 Nwm, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.
1/5.     Jasvindra Kaur D/o Amrik Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
         R/o 01 Nwm, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.
2.       Lrs Of Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh, S/o Bhagat Singh
2/1.     Saranjeet Kaur W/o Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh, (Deceased)
2/2.     Mangal Singh S/o Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh, Aged About 32
         Years, R/o 01 Nwm, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.
2/3.     Balvindra Singh S/o Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh, Aged About
         30    Years,     R/o      01      Nwm,        Tehsil       Anupgarh,    Dist.
         Sriganganagar.
2/41. Gurmel Singh S/o Jeet Singh @ Ajit Singh, Aged About 28
         Years, R/o 01 Nwm, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.
3.       Gurcharan Singh S/o Bhagat Singh, Aged About 70 Years,
         R/o 06-P, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar.


                                                                       ----Appellants
                                        Versus


1.       Lrs Of Shankar, S/o Tota S/o Sohnu
1/1.     Raj Kumari W/o Shankar Singh, R/o Badhiyara, Tehsil And
         Dist. Kangda (H.p.)
1/2.     Lrs   Of    Mahendra          Singh       S/o     Shankar      Singh,    R/o
         Badhiyara, Tehsil And Dist. Kangda (H.p.)
1/2/1       Sumanglo Devi W/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Badhiyara,
         Tehsil And Dist. Kangda (H.p.)


                        (Downloaded on 24/03/2025 at 09:50:51 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:15220]                   (2 of 6)                         [CSA-95/2025]


1/2/2 Vishal S/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Badhiyara, Tehsil And
         Dist. Kangda (H.p.)
1/2/3. Ruchika D/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Badhiyara, Tehsil And
         Dist. Kangda (H.p.)
1/3.     Vijay Kumar S/o Shankar Singh, R/o Badhiyara, Tehsil
         And Dist. Kangda (H.p.)
1/4.     Usha D/o Shankar Singh, R/o Badhiyara, Tehsil And Dist.
         Kangda (H.p.)
1/5.     Lrs Of Pradeep Chand S/o Shankar Singh, R/o Badhiyara,
         Tehsil And Dist. Kangda (H.p.)
1/5/1. Saraswati Devi W/o Pradeep Chand, R/o Badhiyara, Tehsil
         And Dist. Kangda (H.p.)
1/5/2 Anshul S/o Pradeep Chand, R/o Badhiyara, Tehsil And
         Dist. Kangda (H.p.)
2.       Puran Singh S/o Bakhtavar Singh, R/o 05 C.c. Tehsil
         Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
3.       Jangeer Singh S/o Harnam Singh, R/o 05 C.c. Tehsil
         Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :   Mr. S.L. Jain
For Respondent(s)           :   Mr. Hemant Jain



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

21/03/2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. This second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree

dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge

No.2, Anupgarh in Civil Appeal No.6/2021, whereby judgment and

decree dated 24.02.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Anupgarh in Civil Original Suit No.9/2001 has been upheld.

[2025:RJ-JD:15220] (3 of 6) [CSA-95/2025]

3. The appellants have stated in Para 1 that one Shanker son of

Shri Tota was allotted land in Chak No.1 NWM, Tehsil Anupgarh in

Murabba No.220/55 in Kila Nos.1 to 25 in all 25 Bigha. This

allotment was made under the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment

and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their

Transferees in the Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana) Rules, 1972

(the Rules of 1972).

4. Said Shanker appointed Mr. Ram Lal as his holder of Power of

Attorney through registered deed dated 06.05.1975. Since

Shanker was in need of money, he entered into an agreement

through Power of Attorney holder with respondent Nos. 2 and 3

namely Puran Singh and Jangeer Singh, whereby Shanker agreed

to sell the aforesaid property to those persons. No sale-deed was

executed in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. However,

respondent Nos.2 and 3, due to their need of money, entered into

an agreement to sale the property to the present appellants on

25.07.1979 and possession of the land was also handed over to

the appellants. As per the agreement, first the vendor would get

the Khatedari right and then would execute the sale-deed.

5. On the basis of aforesaid averment, the plaintiff-appellants

brought Civil Original Suit No.9/2001, which was dismissed by

judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010. The dismissal was

challenged in Civil Appeal No.6/2021 and the appeal was also

dismissed by Judgment and decree dated 10.01.2025.

6. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiff-appellants apparently

speaks that vendor of the plaintiff-appellants had no title over the

suit property either on the date of agreement or on the date of

[2025:RJ-JD:15220] (4 of 6) [CSA-95/2025]

suit. Therefore, apparently no decree could have been passed in

favour of the appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of

this Court to Rule 6 of the Rules of 1972. The different provisions

whereof speaks about not transfer of the land by the allotee

before expiry of three years in any mode and consequences of

violation of the aforesaid rules.

8. Learned counsel submits that Shanker was party to the suit

hence, the Court should have appropriately passed order against

Shanker as well for his act of violation.

9. Whatever may be the action against Shanker for violation of

the terms and conditions of allotment, the Authorities under the

Rules are only competent to look into that. So far claim of the

appellant for decree for specific performance of contract is

concerned, this Court is of view that no decree could have been

passed as has been done by the Courts below for the simple

reason that the vendor of the plaintiff-appellants had not acquired

title over the suit property.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the

provisions of Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, which stipulates

that when the vendor, who had no title and obtained title

subsequent to the agreement, the agreement can be enforced.

The aforesaid provision is not applicable herein as the vendor

never obtained title subsequent to the agreement or till date.

11. Following questions have been raised as substantial

questions of law involved in this appeal :

"A]. Whether, rule 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of

[2025:RJ-JD:15220] (5 of 6) [CSA-95/2025]

Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their transferees in the IGNP) Rules, 1972 bars the allottee to enter into an Agreement for sale of land, when an agreement to sale is not a transfer under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act ?

B]. Whether, rule 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their transferees in the IGNP) Rules, 1972 is applicable only to the allottee if he contravenes of the terms of the allotment when a penalty is provided under rule 6 (10) of the Rules, 1972 ?

C]. Whether, an Agreement to Sale, not being a transfer, would be termed as void-ab-initio for contravention of rule 6(3) and 6(4) and deemed to be a transfer within the meaning Rule 6(4), when no proceedings are drawn under rule 6(10) of the Rules, 1972 (providing for consequences for contravention of the terms of allotment under rule 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Rules, 1972) for cancellation of allotment ?

D]. Whether, imperfect title of the land at the time of agreement to sale by the vendor, suit for specific performance can be decreed by directing to the vendor to perfect his title and if title is not perfected, then the vendee is entitled for advance money with costs from the vendor ?

E]. Whether, agreement to sale not being a transfer as per section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, entering into an agreement to sale would amount to transfer within the meaning of Rule 6(10), and tantamount to contravention of the terms of allotment under rule 6 (3) and 6 (4) of the Rules, 1972 ?

F]. Whether, the period of 3 years provided under the Rules, 1972 after allotment, on the expiry of the said period the allottee has right

[2025:RJ-JD:15220] (6 of 6) [CSA-95/2025]

to enter into an agreement for sale of land and such agreements are valid agreements ?"

12. Question Nos.A to C have already been referred and other

questions are mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be

looked into at this stage.

13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed being

devoid of any merit.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J 20-deep/-