INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD.versusJAGDISH RAI PURI & OTHER

                                                  [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1176


A                             .            INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD.
              '       ~                                        v.
                  · •·         · JAG DISH RAI PURI & OTHER
                          1   (Civil Appeal Nos. 7934-7935 of 2005)
          ;       I                    ,If                     4

                                                  DECEMBE:R 3, 2008
8'                                '•   :      •       •   •     >    '   '




          [MARKANDEY KATJU AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

         C.onstftution of India, 1950:
c      Article 226 - Writjurisdiction - Exercise of - High Court
  in writ petition directing State Government to accord
  permission to grantee of land to execute sale deed in favour
  of plaintiff-decree-holder in a suit for specific performance of
  contract of sale - HELD: High Court in writ petition should not
  have directed the State Government to grant necessary
D permission for transfer of land' in favour of plaintiff and should
  not have directed defendant to have executed deed of transfer
  in favour of plaintiff - Judgment of the High Court set aside -
  Matter remitted to State Government to decide afresh the
  application seeking permission to transfer the ·1and.
E
       Union of India & Another vs. Bi/ash Chand Jain & Another
  Civil Appeal Nos. 6387-6390 of 2002 decided on 20th
  November, 2008 reiterated.
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
F    7934-7935 of 2004.

          From the final Order dated 8.10.2004 of the High Court of
     Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) Nos. 7230 and 2551 of 2003.
                                                              WITH
G    C.A. No. 3836 of 2005

          Vinod A. Bobde, Anuradha Dutt, B. Vijayalakshimi Menon,
     Ekta Kapil, Kuber Dewan, Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam
     (for Goodwill lndeevar), Janaranjan Das, Swetaketu Mishra,
H                                                             1176
         INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LTD v. JAGDISH RAI PURI & 1177
                            ORS.

         Kedar Nath Tripathy, H.P. Sahu and C.R. Panda (for Abhisth          A
    >-   Kumar) for the appearing parties.

             The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                  ORDER
              1. These Appeals have been filed against the judgment of       s
         the Orissa High Court dated 08th October, 2004 passed in Writ
         Petition Nos.7230 of 2003 and 2551 of 2003.
              2. 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.                                 C
             3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and. perused the
         record.
         4. 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
                                                                             0
   by the High Court in First Appeal No.348 of 1984 on
.. 30.08.1994. In that judgment, it was mentioned that the plaintiffs
   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 it               E
   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 ;n these appeals. ,
             5. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the said
         permission was refused by the State Government by its order         F
~        dated 23.5.2003. Against that order, a writ petition was filed
         which has been decided by the impugned judgment.
            6. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment of
       the High Court. While agreeing with the High Court that the order     G
       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
                                                                             H
     1178       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 16 S.C.R.


A 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
  cohsiderations. -
B           7: 'Recently, in Civil Appeal Nos.6387-6390 of 2002
  decided on 20th November,_ 2008 titled Vnion of India &
  Another vs. Bi/ash 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 authorify passed
C 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.
.0        8. We reiterate the views given in the aforesaid decision
     which has referred to the earlier decisions of this Court on the
     point.
        9. Accordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the
   impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent indicated
E above and remit the matterto 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.
F Civil Appeal No.3836/2005
        10. In view of our decision passed today in Civil Appeal
  Nos.7934-793-5 of 2004, as admitted by the learned counsel
  for respondent No.3 (appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.7934-7935/
G 2004), the direction of the High Court no longer survives and
  this appearhas become infructuous.
         11. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed as having
     become infructuous.                                                     ·-
     R.P.                                       Appeal dismissed.
H