This second appeal was finally heard and allowed vide order of this Court dated 27.4.2004. Thereafter, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.3754 of 2005 before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said appeal was disposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.1.2010, which reads as under :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2004, 27.8.2004 in SA No.7/1994 & RA No.137/2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
"An Important question in this case whether the land in question is exempted from The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 at the relevant time because it was agricultural land. Explanation (B) of Section 2(O) of the Act states :-"
"(B) land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture"
Explanation ( C) of Section 2 (O) states :-
"( C ) notwithstanding anything contained in cl. (B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture."
"In our opinion the High Court should have examined the matter properly as to whether the land in question was exempt from ceiling Act in view of the provisions or not. Hence, we remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observation made above. The High Court will decide the matter expeditiously. Parties may lead fresh evidence before the High Court, if so advised.
"The Appeals are disposed of."
In short the facts of the case are that an agreement to sell was entered into between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 on 15.10.1980. It was stated in para-4 of the suit that it was further agreed that the defendant no.1 will execute the sale deed after obtaining permission from the Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling and when the sale deed was not executed by the appellant, the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract, which was decreed by the trial court. The respondents of the suit filed first appeal before the Court below, which was rejected. Against the orders passed by the Courts below, this second appeal has been preferred by the respondents of the suit. This second appeal was allowed vide order order passed by this Court dated 27.4.2004. The review petition filed against the said order, was also rejected. The plaintiff- respondent no. 1 challenging the order passed in second appeal, approached before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil No. 3754 of 2005 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded back the matter to this Court for decision a fresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the order, expeditiously.
In view of the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court that the parties may lead fresh evidence before the High Court, this Court vide order dated 10.2.2016 deemed it expedient that such a question can best be answered by the concerned Govt. Department and their version should also be taken into account by obtaining their affidavit and their statement. It was accordingly directed that the State Govt. should be made party as proforma respondent no. 2 and the learned standing counsel was directed to file affidavit on the facts in issue whether between the period from 15.10.1980 to 31.7.1981 the land in question was covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation )Act, 1976 or not.
In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, learned standing counsel has been filed affidavit of Sri Dhananjay Shukla, A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue)/ Competent Authority Ceiling. In para- 8 of the affidavit, it has been clarified that on the basis of record available in the department of Urban Ceiling, neither any proposal of exemption under Section 20 of the Act, 1976 was sent to the State Government, nor the State Govt. has passed any order exempting the land in dispute from the purport of Act, 1976.
This Court also found that the documentary evidence evidence, which is a letter filed by the Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, proved that the land in governed under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and there was refusal of grant of permission to sell the land. It was held that the permission to sell was necessary under the Act, 1976 as the land in dispute was within the purview of the said Act. Thus, the decree of specific performance in absence of permission could not be passed. Consequently this second appeal was allowed. The judgments and orders passed by the Courts below were set aside. The suit was thus dismissed.
In these view of the matter, this Court answers that in between the period from 15.10.1980 to 31.7.1981 the land in question being covered under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation )Act, 1976 was not exempted in view of the provisions of Explanation (B) and (C ) of Section 2(O) of the Act.
With these observations, this Court reiterates the views drawn earlier while allowing this second appeal vide order dated 27.4.2004.
Sadiq/-
16.5.2016