Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Srivastava for the respondent Awas Vikas Parishad.
This dispute relates to transfer of a commercial plot which the petitioner claims to have purchased from one Smt. Nirmala Devi. The plot had been allotted in the joint name of Smt. Urmila Devi and Nirmala Devi. The sale deed having been executed by only of the joint allottees has been objected to by the respondent Awas Vikas Parishad.
The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 44067 of 2013 which was disposed of on 29.8.2013 with a direction to the Competent Authority to dispose of the application for mutation filed by the petitioner. A copy of the judgment is Annexure 9 to the writ petition.
An order was passed on 6.11.2013 whereby the respondent Awas Vikas Parishad had in its order erroneously recited Regulation 46 that related to residential plots. Another writ petition was filed against the same that was allowed on 2.4.2014 quashing the order and directing the respondent Awas Vikas Parishad to apply the correct rules and then take a decision accordingly. A copy of the judgment is Annexure 12 to the writ petition.
The Assistant Housing Commissioner has now passed the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that firstly the transaction that has been made in favour of the petitioner is only by one of the joint holders. It has been held that the transaction has not been carried out jointly by both the allottees namely Smt. Urmila Devi and Nirmala Devi. In that event, without there being the partition from a competent court of law and without there being a document of registration executed jointly by both the persons, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
We have perused Clause 16 of the 1980 Rules that have been invoked and we find that such a view that has been taken by the Assistant Housing Commissioner appears to be just keeping in view the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Registration Act. The transfer can only be affected provided a joint deed is executed or otherwise the joint owners seek a partition of the said plot through some competent court.
Consequently, we do not find any error in the impugned order dated 23.6.2014 without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to avail of such remedy as indicated in the impugned order and then apply afresh for the registration/mutation of his name.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2014 Lalit Shukla