NDLI: Shri Saurav Jain & Anr. Vs. M/s A. B. P. Design & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (33 of 1976)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976: ss. 5(3), 10(1), 27 – Transfer of vacant land – Validity of – On facts, first respondent claiming to be a transferable owner and cultivator of certain lands filed a suit for declaration that the auction of said lands by the Development Authority was illegal and void; that the first respondent is the exclusive owner and occupier of the suit lands; and sought permanent injunction from dispossessing the first respondent – Trial court dismissed the suit holding that the Development Authority was lawful owner of the land and the auction was valid – Trial court held that the suit land was of the erstwhile owner, which was declared surplus and was handed over to the Development Authority, and whereas the erstwhile owner had allegedly sold the land to the first respondent – In appeal, the High Court set aside the order of the trial court holding that the auction conducted by the Development Authority in respect of the suit land is null and void, wherein the appellant was the auction purchaser of the suit land from the Development Authority; restrained the appellant and the Development Authority from interfering with the possession of the first respondent over the land – On appeal, held: Purported transfer of the suit land by erstwhile owner to the first respondent was before the Repeal Act was enacted – Dual conditions stipulated u/s. 5(3) were not fulfilled before the transfer was made since the statement u/s. 6 had not been submitted and the Competent Authority had not issued a notification u/s. 10(1) – Thus, even if the erstwhile owner had the title to the suit land, the transfer to the first respondent was null and void u/s. 5(3) – Furthermore, when the erstwhile owner had filed a declaration seeking permission for transfer of the suit land, the permission u/s. 27 was not granted since there was a pending suit concerning the said land – He thenfiled another application seeking permission to transfer half of his ‘retainable’ land – Permission that was granted u/s. 27 by the Office of the Competent Authority was for the transfer of lands from his ‘retainable’ property and not the suit land – Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside – Suit instituted by the first respondent dismissed. Matter pertaining to ceiling proceedings – Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain the suit – Exclusion of – On facts, first respondent sought a declaration in regard to the legality of the auction conducted by the Development Authority and the injunction – Plea that the purpose of the suit was to impugn the validity of proceedings under ULCRA – Held: ULCRA impliedly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court on matters arising out of the ceiling proceedings – First respondent artfully drafted the plaint to challenge the validity of the auction and sought an injunction and declaration, when the substantive cause of action of the suit arises out of the land ceiling proceedings – Real object and purpose of the suit, in the guise or pretext of challenging the auction notice by the Development Authority was to affirm the title of the first respondent on the basis of an alleged permission obtained for the sale of the property – By a process of engineered drafting, the first respondent sought no reliefs in regard to the proceedings under the ULCRA (to obviate a bar to the maintainability of the suit) and did not implead either the State or the Competent Authority who would have been in a position to answer the challenge – Courts below failed to correctly assess the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court to try a suit, which in its essence, arises out of matters pertaining to the ULCRA – This Court, has warned against drafting of this nature which seeks to distract attention away from the real cause of action – Thus, the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit instituted by the first respondent was barred – Judicial deprecation.Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Ord. XLI r. 22 – Filing of cross-objections – Explained. Ord. XLI r. 22 – Plea that a party, in whose favour the civil court has decreed a suit, can raise arguments against findings without having to file a cross-objection, in the appeal – Held: Only when a part of the decree has been assailed by the respondent,should a memorandum of cross-objection be filed, otherwise, it is sufficient to raise a challenge to an adverse finding of the court of first instance before the appellate court without a cross objection – It is not necessary that a challenge to the adverse findings of the lower court needs to be made in the form of a memorandum of cross-objection. Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Raising of new ground before Supreme Court in special leave petition – Permissibility of – Held: Under Ord. 21 r. 3(c) of the 2013 Rules, SLPs are to be confined to the pleadings before the court whose order is challenged – However, with the leave of the Court, additional grounds can be urged at the time of the hearing – Though the appellant did not assail the finding of the trial court on the issue of jurisdiction before the High Court u/Ord. XLI r. 22 CPC either by filing a memorandum of cross- objection or otherwise, he is not precluded from raising the argument before this Court – This Court in view of its plenary jurisdiction u/ Art. 136 read with Art. 142 can entertain new grounds raised for the first time if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing additional evidence, specifically one concerning jurisdiction of the court which goes to the root of the matter – Supreme Court Rules 2013 – Ord. 21 r. 3(c) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XLI r. 22.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 384
Petitioner	Shri Saurav Jain & Anr.
Respondent	M/s A. B. P. Design & Anr.
SCR	[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1020
Judgement Date	2021-08-05
Case Number	4448

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shri Saurav Jain & Anr. Vs. M/s A. B. P. Design & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

S. V Asudevetc. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Nargis Jal Haradhvala Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Ritesh Tewari & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. M. S. Viswanathan & Ors.

Moradabad Development Authority Vs. Saurabh Jain and Ors.

Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Smt. Meera Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.

State of U.p. Vs. Sher Singh and Ors.

Shri Saurav Jain & Anr. Vs. M/s A. B. P. Design & Anr.

Shri Saurav Jain & Anr. Vs. M/s A. B. P. Design & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

S. V Asudevetc. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Nargis Jal Haradhvala Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Ritesh Tewari & Anr. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. M. S. Viswanathan & Ors.

Moradabad Development Authority Vs. Saurabh Jain and Ors.

Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Smt. Meera Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.

State of U.p. Vs. Sher Singh and Ors.

Shri Saurav Jain & Anr. Vs. M/s A. B. P. Design & Anr.