Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

— Ss. 9, 20 and 26 — Order of competent authority under S. 9 determining excess land — Scope of judicial review of such order in Letters Patent Appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of contract — During the pendency of proceedings under the 1976 Act, parties entering into an agreement for sale of land, subject to permission of the competent authority — Competent authority refusing permission on the ground that excess land of the size stipulated in the contract was not available — Sale consequently not materialising — Intended vendee not challenging the order of competent authority but without impleading the competent authority as a party, suing the land owner for specific performance of the contract — Trial court and appellate court although granting some other relief but refusing the relief of grant of specific performance — Appellate court (Single Judge of High Court) upholding that order — In such circumstances, in Letters Patent Appeal, held, Division Bench could not for the first time examine the correctness of the order of the competent authority — His order even if bad in law, could have been challenged only in an appropriate proceedings — Hence, in the present case, Division Bench erred in interfering with the competent authority's conclusion as to non-availability of the excess land by re-examining that question by taking into consideration the parties' personal law of inheritance (Muslim law in this case), (2006) 7 SCC 470-A

Civil Suit

— Void order — If non est — If need not be set aside — Challenge in collateral proceedings whether maintainable, (2006) 7 SCC 470-B

Specific Relief Act, 1963

— Ss. 21 and 20 — Compensation or specific performance — Agreement to sell land entered into during pendency of proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — Agreement stipulating that it was subject to grant of permission by the competent authority under the Act — Agreement, moreover, providing for consequences of default by the parties — Competent authority refusing permission on the ground that the land in question was not available due to ceiling — In such circumstances, held, the intended vendor could not perform his part of contract — Hence, plea for decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell rejected, (2006) 7 SCC 470-C

Specific Relief Act, 1963

— S. 20 — Jurisdiction under — Nature of — Taking into consideration subsequent events to refuse to exercise the jurisdiction — Permissibility — Jurisdiction of courts under S. 20, held, is discretionary — Subsequent events can be taken into consideration to decide to exercise or not to exercise the said jurisdiction — Hence, where the agreement to sell land stipulated that it was subject to grant of permission by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the said authority refused to grant such permission, held, such order of the competent authority should have been necessarily taken into consideration to decide as to whether to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction to direct specific performance of that agreement or not — Till the said order of the competent authority stood, decree for specific performance of the contract could not be granted — Where the discretionary jurisdiction was not exercised in favour of the plaintiff by the trial court and the appellate court (Single Judge, High Court in this case), held, Division Bench of High Court would not, in exercise of its Letters Patent jurisdiction, normally interfere with such decisions of the courts below, (2006) 7 SCC 470-D