(BY MS. MINI RAVINDRA- ADVOCATE) v. Signed by: PANKAJ

(BY MS. MINI RAVINDRA- ADVOCATE) AND HEERALAL S/O SHRI NANDLAL AGRAWAL 982, MANAK CHOWK, MHOW DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI MOHIT MATTA – ADVOCATE) ……………………………………………………………………………………… This petition coming on for admission this day, the court .....RESPONDENT passed the following: ORDER 1] Heard. Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 09-12-2023 16:19:30 2 2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner IDA under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 12.11.2022, passed in case No.R.C.S.A. No.643 of 2022 by 13th Civil Judge, Lower Division, Indore in a National Lok Adalat, Bench No.29, whereby while allowing the petitioner and the respondent to enter into a compromise, a condition has also been imposed by the concerned Judge that the compromise decree is first required to be registered and only then it would confer right on the parties. 3] In brief, the facts of the case are that initially the land of the respondent Heeralal was acquired by the IDA in the Scheme No.165 by way of a mutual agreement and thereafter a registered sale deed was also executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner for the aforesaid land. However, the scheme was not implemented, and subsequently the scheme for which the land was acquired, was also revoked by way of resolution dated 13.03.2020, and it was decided by the petitioner IDA to return the land to the respondent, who was the original owner of the land. And for this purpose, IDA also filed a civil suit for declaration that the sale deed executed on 03.06.2013 be declared null and void on account of its release from the Scheme No.165. In the aforesaid civil suit, after the respondent tendered his appearance, the matter went before the National Lok Adalat in which vide judgement dated 12.11.2022, the parties have compromised the matter. However, while passing the judgement, the learned Judge of the District Court has imposed a condition that the aforesaid decree is required to be registered before the Registrar Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 09-12-2023 16:19:30 3 of Properties after payment of requisite fees and only then this decree can be executed. 4] The grievance of the petitioner is that the suit property originally belongs to the respondent only, and it was acquired only for a specific purpose, and as the property was subsequently decided to be released by the IDA, no new rights were created in favour of the respondent, who is the original owner of the land. In support of his submission, counsel for petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ripudaman Singh Vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand reported as (2021) 7 SCC 446, and so far as the maintainability of the present petition is concerned, counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh and others reported as (2008) 2 SCC 660. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be modified appropriately, and the condition imposed by the District Court regarding the registration of the decree be done away with. 5] Counsel for the respondent submits that since the respondent is the owner of the land and in whose favour the land is being transferred through the compromise decree, he has no objection if the petition is allowed. 6] Counsel for the State submits that appropriate orders may be passed. 7] Heard. In view of the aforesaid submission, perusal of the documents filed on record as also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ripudaman Singh (supra) paras 6, 7, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 09-12-2023 16:19:30 4 9, 14 and 18 in which the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Som Dev and others Vs. Rati Ram and another reported as (2006) 10 SCC 788 has also been relied upon. Para 12 of the same reads as under:- “12. On a plain reading of Section 17 of the Registration Act, with particular reference to clause (vi) of sub-section (2) it is clear that a decree or order of a court and a compromise decree that relates only to the subject matter of the suit need not be registered on the ground that it is a non-testamentary instrument which purports to or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right to or in immovable property or which acknowledges receipt or payment of any consideration on account of a transaction which brings about the above results. But if a suit is decreed on the basis of a compromise and that compromise takes in property that is not the subject matter of the suit, such a compromise decree would require registration. Of course, we are not unmindful of the line of authorities that say that even if there is inclusion of property that is not the subject matter of the suit, if it constitutes the consideration for the compromise, such a compromise decree would be considered to be a compromise relating to the subject matter of the suit and such a decree would also not require registration in view of clause (vi) of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act. Since we are not concerned with that aspect here, it is not necessary to further deal with that question. Suffice it to say that on a plain reading of clause (vi) of Section 17(2) all decrees and orders of Court including a compromise decree subject to the exception as regards properties that are outside the subject matter of the suit, do not require registration on the ground that they are hit by Section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. But at the same time, there is no exemption or exclusion, in respect of the clauses (a), (d) and (e) of Section 17(1) so that if a decree brings about a gift of immovable property, or lease of immovable property from year to year or for a term exceeding one year or reserving an early rent or a transfer of a decree or order of a Court or any award creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing rights to and in immovable property, that requires to be registered.” Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 09-12-2023 16:19:30 5 (emphasis supplied) 8] In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to allow to the present petition and considering the fact that as per the chronology, the land initially belongs to the respondent, which was acquired by the IDA, and through the deed of compromise, the said land was sought to be returned back to the respondent, it can be safely presumed that no new rights were created by way of aforesaid transfer as the respondent had a pre-existing right in the said property, which was also transferred conditionally, in which it was also agreed between the parties that after the development of the land, a portion of which was again required to be returned to the respondent. 9] In view of the same, the impugned order dated 12.11.2022 is hereby modified to the extent that the condition Nos.2 and 3 which read as under:- “ ” are hereby deleted and the other terms and conditions of the decree shall remain unaltered. 10] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. (SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 09-12-2023 16:19:30