Prior Consent Of State Under Rajasthan Colonization Act Which Ceased In 1991, Not Mandatory For Sale Deed Executed In 2003: Rajasthan HC

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed an order which had declared the sale of a land to the petitioners' predecessor-in-title (purchasers) 21-years-ago void on the ground that the seller had not taken State's permission before sale as required under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. 

In doing so the court said that merely because the petitioner's predecessors in title–either due to illiteracy or ignorance of law–failed to obtain prior consent, the rights which have accrued in favour of the purchasers (petitioner/predecessors of the petitioners) cannot be set at zero, over 20 years after the sale. It further said that the Act ceased to operate in 1991 and so consent of the state government was not required. 

As per Section 13(1) of Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 no tenant shall transfer his rights or interest in land by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or gift, without prior written consent of the State.

Justice Dinesh Mehta held that, firstly, even though the purchasers agreed to purchase the land in 1986, the actual sale happened in 2003 when an agreement to sell was entered into and at time, the Act was not in operation any more as it ceased to operate in 1991. It said:

“since provision of section 13(1) of the Act of 1954 ceased to operate from the year 1991 and the sale deed which is the basic document for transfer of the land in favour of the predecessors in title came to be executed on 09.04.2003, it cannot be said that the consent of the State Government was required or was mandatory, more particularly when the same was executed in light of the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1999.”

Secondly, it was held that even though it was assumed that the consent was required, such trivial lapse could not be used to annul the entire sale, that too after 20 years of the transaction, especially in light of Section 13-A of the Act which provided that all transfer made in contravention to Section 13(1) could be validated on payment of applicable compound fee.

It was the case of the petitioners that in 1986, purchasers had entered into an agreement with the original owner of the land to purchase the land and in relation to the same a sum was also paid. However, no sale deed was executed by the owner for which a suit for specific performance was instituted in which the decree was given in 1999.

Based on this decree, a registered sale deed was executed in 2003 and the land was mutated in the purchasers' name. However, the original owner's son filed a complaint that resulted in the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Gharsana (District Sriganganagar) passing the order observing that the original owner did not obtain State's prior consent before transferring the land, and thus, the sale was void.

The petitioners argued that since the land was registered in purchasers' name pursuant to a decree passed by a Civil Court, the SDO could not have ignored the same. It was further submitted that even otherwise, the Court should adopt a lenient view to not negate petitioners' property rights on hyper technical grounds.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the sole reason for setting aside the sale was absence of prior consent and held that:

“According to this Court, simply because the predecessors in title of Saldar Singh due to illiteracy or ignorance of law failed to obtain prior consent, the rights duly crystallized in favour of the purchasers (petitioner/predecessors of the petitioners) cannot be set at naught, that too after 20 years of the contentious sale.”

Furthermore, the Court stated that by the time the decree was passed in 1999 and the sale deed was executed in 2003, the Act had already ceased to be operative in 1991 and thus had no application on the subject land because in 1986, the purchasers had simply agreed to purchase the land while legally there was no transfer till 2003.

The Court also ruled that even if it was assumed that prior consent was needed, the sale which had no other irregularity could not be set aside based on such trivial lapse that too after 20 years of that transaction, especially when Section 13-A of the Act provided for remedying any transfers made in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act, by payment of the applicable compound fee.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the SDO's order of declaring the sale void and allowed the petition.

Case Title: LRs. of Dalip Singh and Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 355

Click Here To Read/Download Order