REPORTABLE

ITEM NO.109                 COURT NO.10               SECTION XIA

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7934-7935 OF 2004

M/S. INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD.                Appellant (s)

                     VERSUS

JAGDISH RAI PURI & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

(With office report ))

WITH  Civil Appeal NO. 3836 of 2005 (With office report)

Date: 03/12/2008  These Appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM

For Appellant(s) Mr. Vinod A. Bobde, Sr. Adv. in CA 7934-35/04 Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. and for respondent(s) Ms. B. Vijayalakshimi Menon,Adv. in CA 3836/2005 Ms. Ekta Kapil, Adv.

Mr. Kuber Dewan, Adv.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Adv. In CA 3836/2005 and Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv.for for respondent(s) Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Adv. in CA 7934-35/04

For Respondent(s) Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.

                    Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Adv.

Mr. H.P.Sahu, Adv. Mr. C.R.Panda, Adv.for Mr. Abhisth Kumar ,Adv

-2-

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Civil Appeal Nos.7934-35 are allowed and the impugned judgment of the

High Court is set aside to the extent indicated in the signed order.

Civil Appeal No.3836/2005 is dismissed as having become infructuous in

terms of the signed order.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) Court Master

(Indu Satija) Court Master

[Signed Reportable Order is placed on the File]

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7934-7935 OF 2004

Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. ..Appellant

vs.

Jagdish Rai Puri & Others ..Respondent

O R D E R

These Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the  Orissa High Court

dated 08th October, 2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos.7230 of 2003 and 2551 of 2003.

The facts of the case are mentioned in the impugned judgment of the High

Court in great detail and we need not refer to the same except where necessary.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It  appears that there was an agreement to sell in favour of respondent No.1

herein-Jagdish Rai Puri and for specific performance of the same, a suit was filed which

was decreed by the High Court in First Appeal No.348 of 1984 on 30.08.1994.  In that

judgment, it was mentioned that the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of contract of

sale is decreed and  for executing the sale deed, defendant will seek permission from the

State Government, as such permission was required as  

-2-

it was a government land.  The land had been granted to the respondent No.2 herein who

entered into an agreement to sell the land to respondent no.1 in these appeals.

From a perusal of the record, it appears that the said permission was refused

by the State Government by its order dated 23.5.2003.  Against that order, a writ petition

was filed which has been decided by the impugned judgment.

We have carefully perused the impugned judgment of the High Court.  While

agreeing with the High Court that the order dated 23.5.2003 refusing permission  was

unsustainable, we are of the opinion that the High Court should not have directed the

State Government to grant the necessary permission for transfer of the said land in favour

of the appellant and should not have directed the opposite party No.1 in the said writ

petition to have executed the deed of transfer in favour of the appellant.  Instead, the

High Court should have remitted the matter to the State Government for deciding the

application seeking permission to transfer the said land afresh on relevant considerations.

Recently, in Civil Appeal Nos.6387-6390 of 2002 decided on 20th November,

2008 titled Union of India & Another vs.  

-3-

Bilash Chand Jain & Another, this Court held that the High Court cannot itself perform

the functions which are to be performed by some other authority.  If that authority passed

an  

order which the High Court finds is not sustainable in law, the High Court can set aside

the said order and remit the matter to the  concerned authority for deciding the same

afresh in accordance with law, but the High Court should not take over the function of the

authority itself.

We reiterate the views given in the aforesaid decision which has referred to the

earlier decisions of this Court on the point.

Accordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of

the  High  Court  to  the  extent  indicated  above  and  remit  the  matter  to  the  State

Government which shall decide the application seeking permission to transfer the said

land afresh in accordance with law  within two months from the date of communication of

this order after hearing the parties concerned.  No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No.3836/2005

In view of our decision passed today in Civil Appeal Nos.7934-7935 of 2004, as

admitted by the learned counsel for  

-4-

respondent No.3 (appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.7934-7935/2004),   the direction of the

High Court no longer survives and this appeal has become infructuous.

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

............................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ............................J. DECEMBER 03, 2008. [AFTAB ALAM]