Holding

The Supreme Court held that no valid permission under the Delhi Lands Act was obtained, the transfers were illegal and void, and the appellants cannot claim title, only compensation.

Summary

The appellants purchased land that had been notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and claimed that they had obtained prior permission under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, to transfer the land. The High Court dismissed their review and writ petitions, holding the transfers illegal. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the permission was valid, noting that the Delhi Lands Act requires a written application to the competent authority (the Additional District Magistrate) and that the documents produced were not issued by that authority. The Court found no proper application or valid permission, and held that any transfer after a Section 4 notification is void and does not bind the government. Consequently, the sale deeds and mutations were declared illegal and without jurisdiction, and the appellants were entitled only to compensation, not title. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether a transfer of land that is subject to acquisition proceedings is valid if the purchaser claims to have obtained permission under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972.
Whether the documents produced by the appellants constitute a valid permission/NOC issued by the competent authority as defined under the Delhi Lands Act.
Whether the registration of sale deeds without such permission is lawful.
Whether a subsequent purchaser can challenge the acquisition proceedings or is limited to claiming compensation.

Legislation cited

Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972s. 11, s. 2(b), s. 2(e), s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 8
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 16, s. 4, s. 6, s. 9
Registration Act, 1908s. 17

Subjects

Land acquisitionDelhi Lands ActTransfer restrictionsCompetent authoritySale deed validityCompensationPublic purposeNotification under Section 4Mutation

Judgment

---

MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1013
& ORS.

these notifications before the High Court, which was dis- A
missed. On appeal, this Court upheld the acquisition pro-
ceedings. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer passed
the award. Aggrieved by the said award, appellants filed
-'f review petition before the High Court and thereafter filed
. second substantive writ petition for declaring the acqui- B
sition proceedings as illegal and void on the ground that
the lands in dispute were purchased only after obtaining
due permission under s.5 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions
and Transfer) Act, 1972 and that the sale deeds executed
in their favour were duly registered with the sub-registrar c
with the endorsement that No Objection Certificate (NOC)
was obtained. High Court dismissed the review and writ
petitions. Hence these appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
'- .
I
D
HELD: 1.1 When a piece of land is sought to be ac-
quired, a notification under s.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 s.6 of
the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a E
notification any encumbrance created by ~he owner, or
any transfer made after the issuance. of such a notifica-
tion would be deemed to be void and would not be bind-
,. ing on the Government. [Para 12] [1022-F & G]
·1
F
UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and Anr.
v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC
124 ; Sneh Prabha (Smt) and Ors. v. State of UP and Anr.
(1996) 7 SCC 426; Ajay Kishan Shinghal & Ors. v. Union of
India (1996) 10 SCC 721; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of
G
Haryana and Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 698 - relied on .
• ~,...>(

Roshanara Begum v. Union of India 61(1996) DLT 206;
Murari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 15 -
referred to.
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A 1.2. Under the Land Acquisition Act, the subsequent
purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings
and that he would be only entitled to get the compensa-
tion. [Para 13] [1024-A]
2. In order to meet the increasing demand of accom- y-
B modation for the larg~ population in Delhi, it was neces-
sary for the Central Government and the State Govern-
ment ~o take appropriate steps for acquiring large tracts .
of Jand. The Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act,
1972 prohibits any transfer.by way of sale, mortgage, gift,
C lease or othenr.iise, of any land which is the subject mat-
ter of acquisition or in respect of which acquisition pro-
ceeding is initiated or proposed to be initiated except by
way of seeking and obtaining previous permission in writ-
ing from the competent authority. It is true that the said
D special Act dealing with restrictions on transfer of land in
Delhi envisages certain parameters which if satisfied
would permit a rand· holder to transfer his I md to a third
party but such transfer is possible orily when prior per-
mission iri 'writing is sought for and obtained from the
E competent authority. [Paras 14, 15] [1024-B,C,E,F,G & H]
3.1 The appellants have placed copies of their respec-
tive sale deeds through which they have allegedly ac-
quired the title of the land in question from the original
land holders. Copies of the orders passed by the Tehsildar
F (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
G were passed by the competent authority under the provi-
sions of the Act and also to support their claim that the
transaction of sale was performed validly and th.at the land
stood transferred in. their favour with mutations granted.
[Para 16] [1028-A,B & C]
H
MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1015
~- ~
& ORS.

3.2. The appellants, in support of their claim had A
placed two non statutory formats. One of the formats was
under the caption "Statement to be furnished to the Reg-
istering Officer for ensuring non contravention of s.8 of
the Delhi Lands Registration of Transfer Act, 1972" and
- '( the other format, allegedly an order to be passed by the B
Tehsildar or an Additional District Magistrate. Permission
to transfer any such land is to be given by the competent
authority and such permission is to be obtained prior to
the transaction entered into, which must be in writing. The
competent authority as envisaged under s.2(b) of the 1972 c
Act is the Additional District Magistrate (Revenue), Delhi
Administration and he is the only authorized competent
person to exercise the powers vested under ss. 5, 6 and
8 of the 1972 Act. No other authority or anyone else, _sub-
ordinate to him was ever authorized to exercise the afore-
D
~ said power. [Para 17] [1028-D,E; 1029-F,G; 1030-D & E]
3.3. On perusal of the documents placed on record,
the permission/NOC which is relied on by all the appellants
appears to have been issued not by the Additional District
Magistrate, who is the competent authority in the present E
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 ss.5, _6
.,,. and 8 of the 1972 Act. No evidence is placed on record iden- F
-< tifying the authority or the person on whose instructions
the aforesaid two documents were prepared. Therefore,
these documents cannot be said to be valid and legal per-
mission granted by the competent authority under the pro-
visions of the 1972 Act permitting transfer of land by way
~ of sale to the appellants. [Para 18] [1030-E,F,G & H]
G

·~ -'( 3.4. Neither an application, as envisaged under s.5(1)
of 1972 Act 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 H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
1~

A provided under s.5(2) of the 1972 Act. A hare perusal of
the contents of the applications filed by appellants shows
that they are not the applications which. are required to be
filed under s.5 of the Delhi Lands Act. Those applications
were not submitted in the form as is prescribed in Form I. y-
B There is nothing on record to show that the said applica-
tions were produced and presented before the competent
authority in terms of s.2(b) of the 1972Act. None of the afore-
said applications also indicate that the land in respect of
which permission/NOC sought for is the subject matter of
c acquisition proceeding. [Para 19] [1031-A,B,C & D]
4.1. It is by now a certain law that an action to be
taken in a particular manner as provided by a statute, must
be taken, done or perform.ed in the manner prescribed·
and in no other manner. [Para 20] [1031-D & E]
D -'"\
Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kera/a (1999) 3 SCC
422 - relied on.
4.2. The Registering Officer who is required to reg is-
ter a document whereby the land is purported to be trans-
E ferred was statutorily under an obligation not to register
any· such document unless the person seeking to trans-
fer the land produces before such registering officer a
•'
legal, valid and statutory permission in writing of the com-
petent authority for such transfer. The aforesaid excep-
F tion should be construed strictly in the light of provisions ) ".
of ss.5 and 8 of the Delhi Lands Act. In the sale deeds
relied· upon by the appellants, it was stipulated that no
notifications under ss.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
G
representation of material facts and intact on a misrepre-
sentation .. None of the pre-requisite conditions laid down ')'.._,..,. '

under ss.4, 5 and 8 of the 1972 Act, which are required to
be strictly complied with for obtaining permission to sell
or transfer and also for registering the said documents
H
MEERA. SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1017
& ORS.

was complied with. The transfers made in favour of the A
appellants by the original land holders by execution of
the sale deed, therefore are illegal and without jurisdic-
tion·. No title could be conveyed or could pass to the ap-
pellants on the basis of such transfer and also that con-
sequential mutation 'in favour of the appellants for the s
above reasons is found and held to be without jurisdic-
tion. [Paras 21, 22] [1032-B,C,D,E & F; 1033-A & B]
5. The facts explicitly prove and establish that all the
statutory requirements were totally ignored and over-
looked by the appellants and also by the registering au- C
thority. Therefore, it cannot be a case for remand under
any circumstances. The responsibility, if any, was on the
appellants to prove and establish that necessary permis-
sion/NOC was granted by the competent authority. They
( have also failed to prove that the certificate, which is an- D
>- nexed and signed on behaJf 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 ques-
tion of issuing any direction to the respondents to allot any E
alternative land to the appellants. [Para 23] (1033-C,D & E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
3413-3414 of 2001

> From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2000 of F
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Petition No. 5918
of 1999 and Review Petition No. 104 of 1999 in Civil Writ Peti-
tion No. 1003 of 1983
WITH
G
S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11233-11234of2001 and C.A. Nos. 6493,
6494 and 6496 of 2002.
Abhishek M. Singhvi, Vijay Hansaria, Anoop G. Choudhary,
Sanjay Sarin, S;:1meena Sheikh and Ashok Mathur for the Ap-
pellant. H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 10 S.C.R.
~-

A Parag Tripathi, A.S.G. Dr. R.G. Padia, Sanjay Poddar,
Vismai Rao, Arti Gupta, Kiran Bhardwaj, Savitri Pandey, D.S.
Mahra and VB. Saharya (for Mis. Saharya & Co.) for the Re-
spondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B 'r -
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
c and order. ;

3. The prime issue that falls for our consideration in these
appeals is whether in view of the provisions of Delhi Lands (Re-
strictions and Transfer) Act, 1972 (for short "Delhi Lands Act"),
read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
D
short "Land,Acquisition Act") transfer of land made by the origi- ~i_

nal owner by registering a sale deed on the basis of w:·1ich mu-
tation 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 Ac-
E quisition 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 neces-
F sary for us to mention a few facts leading to filing of the present .,_ ,..
appeals.
5. On 24.10.1961, a Notification was issued under Sec-
tion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act under the orders of the Lieu-
tenant Governor of Delhi intending acquisition of land for the
G 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
-H Acquisition Act through a Notification dated 4.1.1969 was also
~
MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1019
& ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)

issued stating that the said land is required for the public pur- A
pose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi. In the year
1980, two of 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 un- B
der section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. It is perti-
nent 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. c
6. The legality of the aforesaid Notifications and declara-
tions, 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 pro-
posed to be acquired by the aforesaid notifications. The appel- D
Iants/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. Pad ma Mahant filed E
Civil Writ Petition No.1002 of 1983 and whereas Writ Petition
No.1086 of 1983 was filed by Shri Khyali Ram, the predeces-
sor in-interest of other three appellants, namely, (1) Sapphire
Sales (P) Ltd. (2) Zircon Trading (P) Ltd. and (3) Eternal Agen-
cies Pvt. Ltd. The said writ petitions were finally heard along F
with few other letters patent appeals, and all the writ petitions
and the letters patent appeals were dismissed. The said deci-
sion was rendered By the Delhi High Court on 01.12.1995 un-
der the title Roshanara Begum v. Union of India reported in
61 (1996) DLT 206. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and G
order the writ petitioners preferred appeals in this Court. Some
of the cases which were pending in the High Court and per-
tained to the identical issue were also transferred to this Court.
A number of contentions were raised before this Court chal-
lenging the legality of the orders passed by the High Court and
H
-
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
i~

A 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
B India and others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 15 dismissed the y-
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
c passed by this court, on 12.12.1997 award was made and the
same was published in respect of the aforementioned acquired
land. ~

8. Being aggrieved by the said award Mrs. Meera Sahni
and Pad ma Mahant filed Review Petition Nos.103/99 and 104/
D
99 respectively before the High Court and thereafter filed sec- ~(.
ond 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 regis-
E tered with the sub registrar on 05.06.1980 with the endorse-:-
ment that No Objection Certificate (for short "NOC") has bee.n
obtained. Issue of an order or direction declaring the award and
the further proceedings under section 16 of the Land Acquisi-

F
tion 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., enclos-
ing therewith the possession proceedings dated 27.1.2000. The
G said three companies purchased the land from the legal repre-
sentatives of Shri Khyali Ram under the registered sale deed
dated 23.06.1992. At this point it is worth mentioning that no 'I--........

application for substitution was filed by the said appellants for
substitution of their names in writ petition filed by Shri Khyali
H Ram although the same was pending at the time when such
MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1021
& ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

transfer was made and was finally decided in the case of A
Roshanara Begum (Supra) in the year 1995.
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 Or-
der dated 21.12.2000. Three writ petitions filed by the afore- B
mentioned companies were taken up for consideration by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court and same were dis-
missed 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 C
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 plac- D
ing 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 origi-
nal land owners or predecessors in-interest of the appellants E
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 trans-
fer of land was illegal are untenable. It was also submitted that
possession of the land was not taken over by the respondents F
and, therefore, the aforesaid land could have been released
from acquisition by giving requisite permission under the provi-
sions 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 G
and their predecessors-in-interest in terms of the provisions of
the Act and also in accordance with law and the aforesaid trans-
fer having been accepted by the competent authority as legal
and valid transfer, no title of the land could pass to the respon-
dents only because notification and declaration were issued in H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A 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 afore-
saiq land becomes free from acquisition by operation of law, it
B could be transferred as was done in the present case. It was
also submitted that if the aforesaid contentions of the appel-
lants are not upheld, the appellants could be given an opportu-
nity to file their objection~ under Section 5 of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act or this Court should give a direction to the Land Acqµi~
c sition 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,
D appearing for the respondents drawing our attention to the vari-
ous records including the contents of the notifications. It was
submitted that the possession of the land in question has al-
ready been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer on
27.01.2000, although the said fact is refuted by the appellants.
E On appreciation of the records placed before us and also the
aforesaid contentions which are raised we now proceed to dis-
pose of these appeals by recording our findings and conclu-
sions.
12. When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a noti-
F fication 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
G 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 ·
H acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification
MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1023
& ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the dee- A
la ration under Section 6 of the Act. In UP 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:
"3 ............. Having regard to the facts of this case, we were B
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 C
'
-.(
does not acquire any title to the property..... "
'
In Sneh Prabha (Smt) and others vs. State of UP and
f!nother reported in (1996) 7 sec 426 at 430 it is stated as
under:
D
"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 E
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 F
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 G
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 Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of
Haryana and others reported in (1996) 11 sec 698. H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A 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 tre'-
B mendous 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
C tracts of land. When such effort for acquisition of land is initi-
ated, 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
D unscrupulous property dealers would sometime go to the ex-
tent of encouraging transfer by way of sale, mortgage, gift or
lease of the land which is already acquired or for which acquisi-
tion .proceedings are initiated by the government. The Central
Government being conscious of such situation and position and
E in order to impose restrictions and to prevent such large scale
transactions or purported transactions brought in a special leg-
islation called the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act,
1972 .
. 15. The aforesaid Delhi Lands Act was brought in as
F stated, in the body of the Act, t9 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 initi;:ited except by
way of seeking and obtaining previous permission in writing
G 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 satisfiec! 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
H from the competent authority. Section 2(b) of the said Act de-
"~ MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1025
& ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

fines the word "competent authority'', whereas Section 2(e) of A
the said Act defines the word "scheme". Both the definitions,
as found in the Act, are extracted herein below:

, --i;""
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 B
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 c
scheme, project or work to be implemented in pursuance
of the provisions of the Delhi Master Plan as approved by
the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section
9 of the Development Act."
j·
Relevant for our purpose are the provisions of Sections 4 D
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, E
mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof
situated in the Union territory of Delhi, which is proposed to
be acquired in con~ection 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 F
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
G
~.,. section 4 - (1) Any person desiring to transfer any land
--<;·
I(
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.
H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A (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 ·
B permission applied for under this section except on
one or more of the following grounds, nam.ely:-
(i) that the land is needed or is likely to be needed
forthe effective implementation of the Scheme.
c (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
D
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
E and other educational institutions, hospitals and
public open spaces and other categories of
public uses.
(4) Where the competent authority refuses to grant the
F 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
G 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."
H
I
MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1027
. "r & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

Section 6 of the said Act, on the other hand, envisages A
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 ex- B
peditiously as possible. It is also provided in the said section
that every order made by the prescribed authority would be fi-
nal. Section 8 deals with the restrictions on registration of trans-
fer of land. The said section reads as under:
"8. Restrictions on registration of transfers of land - c
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, D '

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." E
Section 11 of the Delhi Lands Act deals with the rule mak-
ing 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 Trans-
~ -(
fer) Rules, 1972 envisages that an application under Section 5 F
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 G
final orders. Form II provides the format in which an appeal un-
der 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 deter-
H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A mine now as to whether the appellants have been given such
requisite permission to transfer land by the competent author-
ity, 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
B 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 pre-
decessors in-interest of the appellants are also placed on record
C by the appellants to forti,fy 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.
-~
D 17. What was placed by the appellants before us in sup-
port 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
E other format, allegedly an order to be passed by the Tehsildar
or an Additional District Magistrate. In order to properly appre-
ciate, one of the letter/permission is extracted herein below:
"OFFICE OF

F THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE(LA) DELHI
No 4173 (The Notification) Dated 2715192
To .WARNING
The Sub Registrar, The Report is being sent from ac-
G quisition point of view and this of-
Sub District No ill fice has got no responsibility for
any defective title of the land/own-
Delhi/New Delhi ership etc. in the (_sic)

H (i) As per records available in the office the property/land
MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1029
& ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

the details of which are given in the statement has been ac- A
quired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
OR

(ii) The property/land the details of which are given in
.> -'f' the statement stands notified under Section 6 of the B.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Notification
No. Dated- - - -
OR

(iii) The property/land bearing Mpl No. Khasra No. c
(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.
D
Sd/-
27/5/92
For Tehsildar Notification
For Additional District Magistrate
E
(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 other-
wise of the aforesaid nature could be so registered by the reg- F
istering authority only when permission is granted by the com-
petent authority in terms of the requirement of the statute. Per-
mission to transfer or refusing to grant transfer any such land is
to be given by the competent authority and such permission is
to be obtained prior to the transaction entered into, which must· G
be in writing. At this stage we may refer to the copy of the noti~
fication issued by the Delhi Administration: Delhi (Land & Build-
ing Department) Vikas Bhavan; New Delhi of NCT, Delhi dated
11th August, 1972 which reads as under:
H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. ·

A "No.F1 (1 )/72- L&B
NOTIFICATION
In super cession of this Administration Notification of even
number dated the 1oth August, 1972 the Administration of
B 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 Additionc;il
District Magistrate (Revenue), Delhi Administration, Delhi
to perform the fu!)ction of the competent authority under the
c ·, aforesaid Act for the whole of the Un.ion Territory of Delhi.
(R.N. Puri)
Deputy Secretary (L & 8)
Delhi Administration"
D The competent authority as envisaged under Section 2(b)
'.
of the aforesaid Act is, therefore, the Additional District Magis-
trate (Revenue), Delhi Administration and he is the only autho-
rized competent person to exercise the powers vested under
sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Delhi lands Act. No other authority or
E anyone else, subordinate to him was ever authorized to exer- "
cise the aforesaid power.
l:
18. On perusal of the documents placed on record we find
tharthe permission/NOC which is referred to and relied on by
all 'the appellants herein appears to have been issued not by
F the Additional District Magistrate, who is the competent author-
ity 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
. B of the Delhi Lands Act. Neither were we informed nor was any
G evidence placed on record identifying the authority or the per-
son 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 permit-
H ting transfer of land by way of sale to the present appellants.
MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1031
.. t & ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

19. It may be also pointed that neither an application, as A
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
""·~ 1'
placed by the three companies, namely, M/s Saphire Sales (P) B
Ltd., M/s Zircon Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Mis 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 the form as is prescribed in Form I. Mrs. c
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
y
2(b) of the Delhi Lands Act. None of the aforesaid applications
D
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 statute, must be taken, done
or performed in the manner prescribed and in no other manner. E
In this connection we may appropriately refer to the decision of
this Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kera/a, (1999)
3 sec 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 F
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: G
_ . / ' -f "[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 H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. 1 _,

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

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
c 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 ~ '
':(,
D 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
E 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 intact on a mis-
representat_ion. In the present case the registering officer appears
to have registered the sale deeds illegally and without jurisdic-
}-
F tion, as in our considered opinion.. none of the pre-requisite con-
ditions 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.
G 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
H the appellants by the competent authority under the provisions
MEERA SAHNI v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI 1033
& ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
,. 'r
of the aforesaid Act. The transfers made in favour of the appel- A
!ants by the original land holders by execution of the sale deed,
therefor are illegal and without jurisdiction. We have no hesita-
tion in our mind in holding that no title could be conveyed or
could pass to the appellants on the basis of such transfer and
I >.--'( also that consequential mutation in favour of the appellants for B
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
-I; remand to the High Court so as to enable the High Court to en-
\\
(
quire into factual aspect as to whether or not there was a proper c
application and that whether or not, permission as required, was
granted by the competent authority. The facts delineated herein-
above clearly and explicitly prove and establish that the same
did not happen and all the statutory requirements were totally ig-
nored and overlooked by the appellants and also by the register- D
ing authority. Therefore, it cannot be a case for remand under
" any circumstances. The responsibility, if any, was on the appel-
!ants 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
E
Additional Magistrate/Tehsildar, could be considered as a per-
mission/NOC, as envisaged under the Act. There was no valid
transfer in favour of the appellants and, therefore, there is no ques-
tion of issuing any direction to the respondents to allot any alter-
native land to the appellants. So far as the prayer for granting
~ liberty to the appellants to make an application under Sections 4 F
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.
G
24. We, therefore, dismiss all these appeals and uphold
the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also by the
- -f Full Bench which dismissed the writ petitions and the letters
Patent Appeal. The appeals are dismissed with costs.

D.G. • Appeals dismissed . H
.~