REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3413-3414 OF 2001   

Meera Sahni …. Appellant

Versus

Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. …. Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.                OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.11233-11234 of 2001)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6493 OF 2002 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6494 OF 2002 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6496 OF 2002

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.                     

1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos.11233-11234 of 2001.

2. All these appeals involving identical issues were heard together and

are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order.

3. The prime issue that  falls for our consideration in these appeals is

whether in view of the provisions of Delhi Lands (Restrictions and Transfer) Act,

1972  (for  short  “Delhi  Lands  Act”),  read  with  the  provisions  of  the  Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Land Acquisition Act”) transfer of land made by

the original owner by registering a sale deed on the basis of which mutation was

also granted would and could be accepted as legal and valid transfer despite the

fact that such land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of

the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties advanced elaborate and in-

depth arguments on the aforesaid issue.  But before we deal with and discuss the

same, it would be necessary for us to mention a few facts leading to filing of the

present appeals.  

5. On 24.10.1961,  a  Notification  was  issued  under  Section  4  of  the

Land  Acquisition  Act  under  the  orders  of  the  Lieutenant  Governor  of  Delhi

intending  acquisition  of  land  for  the  public  purpose,  namely  for  the  planned

development  of  Delhi.   Under  the  aforesaid  Notification  the  land  allegedly

belonging  to  the  predecessors  in-interest  of  the  present  appellants  which

constitute the subject matter of the present appeals was also sought to be acquired.

Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act through a Notification

dated 4.1.1969 was also issued stating that the said land is required for the public

purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. In the year 1980, two of

2

the appellants viz. Mrs. Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant purchased the said

acquired  land  from one  Shri  Chand  which  was  transferred  through  Mr.  Nand

Kishore, power of attorney holder. Subsequently, on 26.4.1983 Notification under

section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. It is pertinent to mention here

that  no  Notification  under  Section  48  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  which

empowers  the  government  to  withdraw from acquisition of  any land on which

possession has not been taken, was issued in respect of land in question.   

6. The legality of  the aforesaid  Notifications  and declarations,  which

were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and subsequent

Notification  under  Section  9,  were  challenged  by  various  land  holders  whose

lands  were  proposed  to  be  acquired  by  the  aforesaid  notifications.  The

appellants/predecessor in-interest of the appellants also filed similar writ petitions

in the High Court of Delhi challenging the legality and validity of the notification

and declaration under which their land was proposed to be acquired.  Smt. Meera

Sahni filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1003 of 1983, Smt. Padma Mahant filed Civil

Writ Petition No.1002 of 1983 and whereas Writ Petition No.1086 of 1983 was

filed by Shri Khyali  Ram, the predecessor in-interest  of other three appellants,

namely, (1) Sapphire Sales (P) Ltd. (2) Zircon Trading (P) Ltd. and (3) Eternal

Agencies Pvt. Ltd.  The said writ petitions were finally heard along with few other

letters patent appeals, and all the writ petitions and the letters patent appeals were

3

dismissed.   The  said  decision  was  rendered  By  the  Delhi  High  Court  on

01.12.1995 under the title  Roshanara Begum v.  Union of India reported in 61

(1996)  DLT  206.   Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment  and  order  the  writ

petitioners preferred appeals in this Court.  Some of the cases which were pending

in the High Court and pertained to the identical issue were also transferred to this

Court.  A number of  contentions  were raised  before  this  Court  challenging the

legality  of  the  orders  passed  by  the  High  Court  and  also  challenging  the

acquisition  proceedings  of  lands  of  the  appellants  which  were  proposed  to  be

acquired for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. After considering in-

depth  all  the  submissions  made,  this  Court   by the  judgment  and  order  dated

01.11.1996,  under the  title  Murari and others v.  Union of India  and others

reported in (1997) 1 SCC 15 dismissed the said appeals and upheld the acquisition

proceedings.

7. After the abovementioned decision of  this  Court  on 01.11.1996 in

Murari’s  case (supra)  upholding  the  acquisition  proceedings  the  Land

Acquisition  Officer  in  terms of  the  order  passed  by this  court,  on  12.12.1997

award was made and the same was published in respect of the aforementioned

acquired land.  

4

8. Being  aggrieved  by the  said  award  Mrs.  Meera  Sahni  and Padma

Mahant  filed  Review  Petition  Nos.103/99  and  104/99  respectively  before  the

High  Court  and  thereafter  filed  second  substantive  Writ  Petition  being

No.5918/1999 on the ground that the lands in dispute were purchased only after

obtaining due permission under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands Act and that the sale

deeds were executed in their favour were duly registered with the sub registrar on

05.06.1980 with the endorsement that No Objection Certificate (for short “NOC”)

has  been obtained.  Issue  of  an order  or  direction  declaring the award and the

further  proceedings  under  section  16  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  as  invalid,

illegal and void was prayed for in the said proceedings. Seeking similar relief,

Writ Petition No.1076 of 2000 was filed by Saphire Sales (P) Ltd., Writ Petition

No.1074  of  2000  was  filed  by  Zircon  Trading  (P)  Ltd  and  Writ  Petition

No.1075/2000 was filed by Eternal Agencies Pvt.  Ltd.,  enclosing therewith the

possession proceedings dated 27.1.2000. The said three companies purchased the

land from the legal representatives of Shri Khyali Ram under the registered sale

deed dated 23.06.1992. At this point it is worth mentioning that no application for

substitution was filed by the said appellants for substitution of their names in writ

petition  filed by Shri  Khyali  Ram although the  same was pending at  the  time

when such transfer was made and was finally decided in the case of  Roshanara

Begum (Supra) in the year 1995.  

5

9. The Full  Bench of the High Court  considered the said review and

writ petitions filed by Mrs.Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant and dismissed

the same with costs under Order dated 21.12.2000.  Three writ petitions filed by

the afore-mentioned companies were taken up for consideration by the learned

Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  and  same were  dismissed  by  an  order  dated

27.2.2002.  Appeals filed by them were heard by the Division Bench of the High

Court and same were also dismissed on 22.3.2002.  Being aggrieved by the said

orders the present special leave petitions were filed.

10. The  appellants  were  represented  before  us  by  Dr.  Abhishek  M.

Singhvi,  Mr.  Vijay  Hansaria  and  Mr.  Anoop  G.  Choudhary,  learned  senior

counsel,  who  took  great  pains  in  placing  before  us  the  various  relevant

documents.  It was submitted by them that in terms of the provisions of the Delhi

Lands  Act  read  with  the  provisions  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  requisite

permission was granted by the competent authority to all the appellants herein to

purchase  the  aforesaid  land  from the  original  land  owners  or  predecessors  in-

interest of the appellants and that consequential actions having been taken on the

basis thereof by executing sale deeds and granting mutation thereon, the actions

of the  respondents  in  taking  up the  stand that  transfer  of  land  was  illegal  are

untenable. It was also submitted that possession of the land was not taken over by

the respondents and, therefore, the aforesaid land could have been released from

6

acquisition by giving requisite permission under the provisions of the Delhi Lands

Act particularly when the sale deeds have been executed and mutation has been

granted.  It was also submitted that all the actions were taken by the appellants

and their predecessors-in-interest in terms of the provisions of the Act and also in

accordance  with  law  and  the  aforesaid  transfer  having  been  accepted  by  the

competent authority as legal and valid transfer, no title of the land could pass to

the respondents only because notification and declaration were issued in respect

of the said land.  It was also contended that there was no bar in transferring the

said land although the said land is the subject matter of notifications under section

4  and  declaration  under  section  6  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  and  once  the

aforesaid  land becomes free from acquisition  by operation  of  law,  it  could  be

transferred  as  was  done  in  the  present  case.  It  was  also  submitted  that  if  the

aforesaid  contentions  of  the appellants  are not  upheld,  the appellants  could be

given  an  opportunity  to  file  their  objections  under  Section  5  of  the  Land

Acquisition  Act or  this  Court  should give a direction  to  the  Land Acquisition

Branch for allotment of alternative land to the appellants as they were sought to

be deprived of the fruits of their bona fide purchase after a long gap of eight years.

11. The said contentions of the appellants were refuted by Shri Parag P.

Tripathi, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents

drawing  our  attention  to  the  various  records  including  the  contents  of  the

7

notifications.  It  was  submitted  that  the  possession  of  the  land  in  question  has

already been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27.01.2000, although

the said fact is refuted by the appellants. On appreciation of the records placed

before us and also the aforesaid contentions which are raised we now proceed to

dispose of these appeals by recording our findings and conclusions.

12. When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification under

Section  4  of  Land  Acquisition  Act  is  required  to  be  issued  by  the  State

Government  strictly  in  accordance  with  law.   The  said  notification  is  also

required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 6 of the

Land  Acquisition  Act  and  with  the  issuance  of  such  a  notification  any

encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of

such a notification would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on

the government.   A number of  decisions  of  this  Court  have recognized  the

aforesaid  proposition  of  law wherein  it  was held that  subsequent  purchaser

cannot  challenge  acquisition  proceedings  and  also  the  validity  of  the

notification  or  the  irregularity  in  taking  possession  of  the  land  after  the

declaration under Section 6 of the Act.  In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through

its  Chairman and another  vs.  Kalra  Properties  (P)  Ltd.,  Lucknow and

others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 124 it was stated by this Court that:

8

“3. ............Having regard to the facts of this case, we were not inclined to further adjourn the case nor to remit the case for fresh consideration by the High Court.  It is well settled law that after the notification under  Section  4(1)  is  published in  the Gazette  any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property.....”

In  Sneh  Prabha  (Smt)  and  others vs.  State  of  U.P.  and  another

reported in (1996) 7 SCC 426 at 430 it is stated as under:

“5.    ......It  is  settled  law  that  any  person  who purchases  land  after  publication  of  the  notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril.   The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely  to  be  needed  for  public  purpose  and  the acquisition proceedings point out and an implement to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the land  to  do  preliminaries  etc.   Therefore,  any alienation  of  the  land  after  the  publication  of  the notification  under  Section  4(1)  does  not  bind  the government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, title and interests  in  land  stand  vested  in  the  State,  under Section  16  of  the  Act,  free  from all  encumbrances and  thereby  absolute  title  in  the  land  is  acquired thereunder......”

The  said  proposition  of  law was  also  reiterated  in  the  cases  of  Ajay  Kishan

Shinghal & Ors. vs.  Union of India reported in (1996) 10 SCC 721 and  Star

9

Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 11 SCC

698.

13. In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well settled law that

under the Land Acquisition Act the subsequent  purchaser cannot challenge the

acquisition  proceedings  and  that  he  would  be  only  entitled  to  get  the

compensation.

14. Delhi being the capital city of India, there was a tremendous increase

in  population  in  Delhi  with  a  consequential  demand  for  land  from  various

quarters.  In order to meet the increasing demand of accommodation for the large

population in Delhi it  was necessary for the Central Government and the State

Government to take appropriate steps for acquiring large tracts of land.  When

such effort for acquisition of land is initiated, it is but natural and inevitable that

some of the property dealers try to take advantage of the situation by resorting to

various  unscrupulous  means  so  as  to  take  advantage  of  the  high  and  ever

increasing  demand  of  the  land.   Some of  these  unscrupulous  property  dealers

would  sometime  go  to  the  extent  of  encouraging  transfer  by  way  of  sale,

mortgage,  gift  or  lease  of  the  land  which  is  already  acquired  or  for  which

acquisition proceedings are initiated by the government.  The Central Government

being conscious of such situation and position and in order to impose restrictions

1

and to prevent such large scale transactions or purported transactions brought in a

special legislation called the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972.  

15. The aforesaid Delhi Lands Act was brought in as stated, in the body

of  the  Act,  to  prohibit  any  transfer  by  way  of  sale,  mortgage,  gift,  lease  or

otherwise, of any land which is the subject matter of acquisition or in respect of

which acquisition proceeding is initiated or proposed to be initiated except by way

of  seeking  and  obtaining  previous  permission  in  writing  from the  competent

authority. It is true that the said special act dealing with restrictions on transfer of

land in Delhi envisages certain parameters which if satisfied would permit a land

holder to transfer his land to a third party but such transfer is possible only when

prior  permission  in  writing  is  sought  for  and  obtained  from  the  competent

authority.  Section 2(b) of the said Act defines the word “competent authority”,

whereas  Section  2(e)  of  the  said  Act  defines  the  word  “scheme”.   Both  the

definitions, as found in the Act, are extracted hereinbelow:  

2(b).    “competent  authority” means  any  person  or authority authorized by the Administrator, by notification in the  Official  gazette,  to  perform  the  functions  of  the competent authority under this Act for such areas as may be specified in the notification.

2(e) “Scheme” means the scheme of acquisition of land for  the  planned  development  of  Delhi  and  includes  any scheme, project or work to be implemented in pursuance of the provisions of the Delhi Master Plan as approved by the

1

Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Development Act.”

Relevant for our purpose are the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 which read as

under:  

“4. Regulation  on  transfer  of  lands  in  relation  to which acquisition proceedings have been initiated  – No person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, transfer or purport to transfer by sale,  mortgage,  gift,  lease  or  otherwise  any  land  or  part thereof situated  in  the  Union territory of  Delhi,  which  is proposed to be acquired in connection with the Scheme and in relation to which a declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof is needed for a public purpose having been made by the  Central  Government  under  Section  6 of  the Land Acquisition  Act,  1894,  the Central  Government  has not withdrawn from the acquisition under Section48 of the Act.

5. Application  for  grant  of  permission  for  transfer under section 4 –  (1) Any person desiring to transfer any land referred to in section 4 by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise  may  make  an  application  in  writing  to  the competent authority containing such particulars as may be prescribed.

(2)  On receipt  of  an  application  under  sub-section  (1), the competent authority shall, after making such inquiries as it deems fit, may, by order in writing, grant or refuse to grant the permission applied for.

(3) The competent authority shall not refuse to grant the permission applied for under this section except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:- (i) that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for the effective implementation of the Scheme.

1

(ii) that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for securing  the  objects  of  the  Delhi  Development  Authority referred to in section 6 of the Development Act. (iii) that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for any  development  within  the  meaning  of  clause  (d)  of section  2  of  the  Development  Act  or  for  such  things  as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing,  recreation,  industry,  business,  markets,  schools and other educational institutions, hospitals and public open spaces and other categories of public uses.

(4) Where the  competent  authority refuses to  grant  the permission applied for, it shall record in writing the reasons for doing so and a copy of the same shall be communicated to the applicant.

(5) Where within a period of thirty days of the date of receipt of an application under this section the competent authority does not refuse to grant the permission applied for or does not communicate the refusal to the application, the competent  authority   shall  be  deemed  to  have  granted permission applied for.”

Section 6 of the said Act, on the other hand, envisages filing of an appeal by any

aggrieved person against any order passed by the competent authority.  On receipt

of an appeal of the aforesaid nature, if any, filed by any aggrieved person, the

prescribed authority has to give a hearing to the applicant and thereafter the said

appeal  is  required  to  be  disposed  of  as  expeditiously  as  possible.   It  is  also

provided in the  said section  that  every order made by the prescribed authority

would be final.  Section 8 deals with the restrictions on registration of transfer of

land. The said section reads as under:

1

“8. Restrictions on registration of transfers of land – Notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any document required to be registered under the provisions of clause (a) to clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, purports  to  transfer  by  sale,  mortgage,  gift,  lease  or otherwise any land or part thereof referred to in section 4, no registering officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document  unless  the  transferor  produces  before such  registering  officer  a  permission  in  writing  of  the competent authority for such transfer.”

Section 11 of the Delhi Lands Act deals with the rule making power. It provides

that the Administrator may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for

carrying out the purposes of the said Act. Rule 3 of the Delhi Lands (Restriction

on Transfer)  Rules,  1972 envisages  that  an application  under  Section  5 of  the

Delhi  Lands  Act  is  to  be  made  by  every  person  seeking  permission  of  the

competent authority.  The said application has to be made in duplicate in Form I.

It is also provided that on receipt of such an application the competent authority

may make such enquiries as may be deemed necessary before passing final orders.

Form II provides the format in which an appeal under section 6 of the Delhi Lands

Act could be filed.

16. In the backdrop of the aforementioned provisions of law it  would,

therefore,  be  necessary  to  ascertain  and  determine  now  as  to  whether  the

appellants  have  been  given  such  requisite  permission  to  transfer  land  by  the

1

competent authority, as provided under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

The appellants have placed copies of their respective sale deeds through which

they have allegedly acquired the title of the land in question from the original land

holders. Copies of the orders passed by the Tehsildar (Notification) on behalf of

Additional  District  Magistrate  (Land  Acquisition)  Delhi  allegedly  granting

permission for transfer and alleged NOC obtained by the predecessors in-interest

of  the  appellants  are  also  placed  on  record  by  the  appellants  to  fortify  their

arguments  that  the  orders  were  passed  by  the  competent  authority  under  the

provisions of the Act and also to support their claim that the transaction of sale

was performed validly  and that  the  land stood transferred  in  their  favour  with

mutations granted.

17. What was placed by the appellants before us in support of their claim

were  two  non  statutory  formats.  One  of  the  formats  was  under  the  caption

“Statement  to  be  furnished  to  the  Registering  Officer  for  Ensuring  non

contravention of Section 8 of the Delhi Lands Registration of Transfer Act, 1972”

and  the  other  format,  allegedly  an  order  to  be  passed  by the  Tehsildar  or  an

Additional  District  Magistrate.  In  order  to  properly  appreciate,  one  of  the

letter/permission is extracted herein below:

“OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE(LA) DELHI

1

No        4173      (The Notification)           Dated        27/5/92

To The Sub Registrar, Sub District No        III  Delhi/New Delhi

        WARNING

The Report is being sent from acquisition point  of view and this office has got no responsibility for any defective title of the land/ownership etc. in the (sic)

(i) As per  records  available  in  the office the property/land the details of which are given in the statement has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

OR (ii) The  property/land  the  details  of  which  are  given  in  the statement stands notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Notification No._______  Dated___________

OR (iii) The  property/land  bearing  Mpl  No.   Khasra  No. ____________________(Sic)                        the details of which are given in the statement has not been notified so far under Section of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 this information is valid for a period of 30 days from the date of issue.                                                                            Sd/-

27/5/92    For Tehsildar Notification

                  For Additional District Magistrate        (LA) Delhi

                          (Clauses not applicable should be deleted )”

The requirement of the statute is that such permission for transfer of land by way

of  sale,  mortgage,  lease,  gift  or  otherwise  of  the aforesaid  nature  could  be  so

registered  by the registering  authority  only when permission  is  granted  by the

competent  authority in  terms of  the requirement  of  the  statute.   Permission to

transfer or refusing to grant transfer any such land is to be given by the competent

1

authority and such permission is to be obtained prior to the transaction entered

into, which must be in writing.  At this stage we may refer to the copy of the

notification  issued  by  the  Delhi  Administration:  Delhi  (Land  &  Building

Department) Vikas Bhavan; New Delhi of NCT, Delhi dated 11th August, 1972

which reads as under:

“No.F1(1)/72- L&B NOTIFICATION

In super cession of this Administration Notification of  even  number  dated  the  10th August,  1972  the Administration of Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of the power conferred under Section 2(b) of the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972, is pleased to authorize the  Additional  District  Magistrate  (Revenue),  Delhi Administration,  Delhi  to  perform  the  function  of  the competent authority under the aforesaid Act for the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi.

(R.N. Puri) Deputy Secretary (L & B)

Delhi Administration”

The competent authority as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the aforesaid Act is,

therefore, the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Delhi Administration and

he is the only authorized competent person to exercise the powers vested under

sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Delhi  lands Act.  No other  authority or anyone else,

subordinate to him was ever authorized to exercise the aforesaid power.  

1

18. On  perusal  of  the  documents  placed  on  record  we  find  that  the

permission/NOC which is referred to and relied on by all  the appellants herein

appears to have been issued not by the Additional District Magistrate, who is the

competent authority in the present case. The same appears to have been issued by

some person signing for Tehsildar and for Additional District Magistrate. In any

case Tehsildar is also not authorized to act as a competent authority as envisaged

under Section 5, 6 and 8 of the Delhi Lands Act. Neither were we informed nor

was any evidence  placed  on record  identifying  the  authority  or  the  person  on

whose  instructions  the  aforesaid  two documents  were prepared.  Therefore,  the

aforesaid  documents  which  are  relied  on  cannot  be  said  to  be  valid  and  legal

permission granted by the competent  authority under the provisions of the Act

permitting transfer of land by way of sale to the present appellants.

19. It may be also pointed that neither an application, as envisaged under

Section 5(1) is filed on record, nor has any documentary proof been placed on

record to indicate that any enquiry was made which is required to be done in the

manner provided under Section 5(2) of the Act. Three applications were placed by

the three companies, namely, M/s Saphire Sales (P) Ltd., M/s Zircon Trading Pvt.

Ltd. and M/s Eternal Agency (P) Ltd. A bare perusal of the contents of the said

applications shows that they are not the applications which are required to be filed

under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands Act.  Those applications were not submitted in

1

the form as is prescribed in Form I.  Mrs. Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant

have  not  filed  copies  of  any such application  before  us.   There  is  nothing  on

record to show that the said applications were produced and presented before the

competent authority as pointed out in terms of Section 2(b) of the Delhi Lands

Act. None of the aforesaid applications also indicate that the land in respect of

which permission/NOC  sought for is the subject matter of acquisition proceeding.

20. It is by now a certain law that an action to be taken in a particular

manner as provided by a statue, must be taken, done or performed in the manner

prescribed and in no other manner. In this connection we may appropriately refer

to the decision of this Court in  Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999)

3 SCC 422,  wherein it was held as under:

31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in  that  manner  or  not  at  all.  The origin of this  rule  is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 which  was  followed  by  Lord  Roche  in  Nazir  Ahmad  v.  King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 who stated as under:

“[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.”

32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. AIR 1954 SC 322  and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1527. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358  and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case (supra) was again upheld. This rule has since

1

been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law.

21. The  Registering  Officer  who  is  required  to  register  a  document

whereby the land is purported to be transferred by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or

otherwise was statutorily under an obligation not to register any such document

unless the person seeking to transfer the land produces before such registering

officer  a  legal,  valid  and  statutory  permission  in  writing  of  the  competent

authority for such transfer.  The aforesaid exception provided in the Delhi Lands

Act for grant of permission despite acquisition is a statutory exception and should

be construed strictly in the light of the said provisions, namely, in the light of

provisions of Sections 5 and 8 of the Delhi Lands Act. In the sale deeds referred

to  and  relied  upon  by the  appellants  it  was  stipulated  and  mentioned  that  no

notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued

in  relation  to  the  land  in  question  prior  to  the said  alleged  transfer.  The  said

transfer  is  on  a  wrong  representation  of  material  facts  and  infact  on  a

misrepresentation.  In  the  present  case  the  registering  officer  appears  to  have

registered the sale deeds illegally and without jurisdiction, as in our considered

opinion, none of the pre-requisite conditions laid down under Sections 4, 5 and 8

of  the  Act,  which  are  required  to  be  strictly  complied  with  for  obtaining

permission  to  sell  or  transfer  and also  for  registering  the  said  documents  was

complied with, as is required to be done.  

2

22. It is, thus, established from the record placed before us that neither

any  proper  application  was  made  either  by the  predecessors  in-interest  of  the

appellants or by the appellants themselves, as envisaged under Sections 4 and 5 of

the  Delhi  Lands  Act,  nor  any  valid  and  legal  permission  was  granted  to  the

appellants by the competent authority under the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

The transfers made in favour of the appellants  by the original  land holders  by

execution of the sale deed, therefor are illegal and without jurisdiction. We have

no hesitation in our mind in holding that no title could be conveyed or could pass

to the appellants on the basis of such transfer and also that consequential mutation

in favour of the appellants for the above reasons is found and held to be without

jurisdiction.

23. We have also given our consideration  to the contention of learned

senior counsel Dr. A.M. Singhvi that it is a case of remand to the High Court so as

to enable the High Court to enquire into factual aspect as to whether or not there

was a proper application and that  whether  or not,  permission  as required,  was

granted by the competent authority.  The facts delineated hereinabove clearly and

explicitly prove and establish that the same did not happen and all the statutory

requirements were totally ignored and overlooked by the appellants and also by

the registering authority.  Therefore,  it  cannot be a case for remand under any

2

circumstances.   The  responsibility,  if  any,  was  on the  appellants  to  prove and

establish that necessary permission/NOC was granted by the competent authority.

They have also failed to prove that the certificate, which is annexed and signed on

behalf  of  the  Additional  Magistrate/Tehsildar,  could  be  considered  as  a

permission/NOC, as  envisaged under  the Act.   There  was  no  valid  transfer  in

favour  of  the  appellants  and,  therefore,  there  is  no  question  of  issuing  any

direction to the respondents to allot any alternative land to the appellants.  So far

as the prayer for granting liberty to the appellants to make an application under

Sections  4  and  5  of  the  Delhi  Lands  Act  is  concerned,  we do  not  make  any

observation thereto except for saying that if a statutory remedy is provided for to a

person, he is always entitled to take recourse to such remedy in accordance with

law.  

24. We, therefore, dismiss all these appeals and uphold the order passed

by the learned Single Judge and also by the Full Bench which dismissed the writ

petitions and the letters Patent Appeal.  The appeals are dismissed with costs.

…………………………...J. (Altamas Kabir)  

……………………………J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

New Delhi; July 15, 2008

2