Supreme Court Sets Aside Unilateral Conveyance Order Due to Lack of Notice. The order was invalidated as the appellants were not informed of the changed hearing date, violating their right to be heard under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from an appeal against an order by the District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, which granted a unilateral conveyance deed to a cooperative housing society. The appellants, legal heirs of the landowner, contended that the agreement for sale had been terminated due to non-payment. They challenged the unilateral conveyance on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and improper notice regarding the hearing date. The District Deputy Registrar had preponed the hearing without ensuring that all parties were notified, which the appellants argued prejudiced their case. The High Court refused to grant a stay on the grounds that the writ petition was filed too late and the conveyance had already been registered. The Supreme Court found that the appellants were not properly notified of the hearing, violating their right to be heard. The court concluded that the order was unjustified and set it aside, remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the District Deputy Registrar, directing that it be resolved within three months without influence from the previous order.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Right to Hearing - Violation of Audi Alteram Partem - Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, Section 5A - The court held that the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar was vitiated due to the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem as the appellants were not notified of the changed date of hearing, leading to their absence during the proceedings. The court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal (Paras 19-20).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar was valid given the lack of notice to the appellants regarding the changed date of hearing.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 12.6.2012, and remitted the matter for fresh disposal by the District Deputy Registrar within three months.

Law Points

  • audi alteram partem
  • unilateral conveyance
  • jurisdiction of competent authority
  • Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act
  • 1963
  • service of notice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (SC) (07) 127

Civil Appeal No. 4822 of 2013

2013-07-01

G.S. Singhvi, Ranjana Prakash Desai

Mukul Rohatgi, Shyam Divan

Taranjeet Singh Mohan Singh Sawhney and others

District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against the order of the District Deputy Registrar regarding unilateral conveyance.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the order granting unilateral conveyance.

Filing Reason

Challenged the validity of the unilateral conveyance due to lack of notice.

Previous Decisions

The High Court refused to grant a stay on the order.

Issues

Validity of unilateral conveyance order Proper service of notice to parties

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that they were not notified of the changed hearing date, violating their right to be heard. Respondent supported the preponement of the hearing date, claiming it was necessary to meet statutory timelines.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of the right to be heard and the necessity of proper notice in administrative proceedings, particularly under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act.

Judgment Excerpts

The order passed by respondent No.1 is vitiated due to violation of the rule of audi alteram partem and is liable to be set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh disposal of the application.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the District Deputy Registrar, which was challenged in the High Court through a writ petition. The High Court refused to grant a stay, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act: 5A, 11(3), 11(4)
  • Registration Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remands Case for Substantial Question of Law Consideration. High Court's Order Set Aside for Failing to Frame Substantial Question of Law Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Award of Bonus to Workers in Gold Mining Industry — Emphasizes Applicability of Full Bench Formula.