Whether it is mandatory to enclose no objection certificate For Registering Sale Of Fragmented Land?

 In our view, neither sections 34 and 35 nor section 69 of the Indian Registration Act empowers the State Government to issue directions to the Sub-Registrar who is the statutory authority under the Registration Act to desist the registration of the document on account of breach of any terms and conditions under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1947 or under any other law or without obtaining prior No Objection Certificate from the concerned authority as a precondition for the registration of any document. {Para 31}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2111 of 2022

Decided On: 05.05.2022

 Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors.  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Dhanuka and S.G. Mehare, JJ.

Author: R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1601/2022

Print Page

When fragment can be transferred as per fragmentation and consolidation Act?

 The only other section which prohibits transfer is Section 7(1) of the Fragmentation Act and it runs as follows:--

"7. (1) No person shall transfer any fragment in respect of which a notice has been given under Sub-section (2) of Section 6, except to the owner of a contiguous survey number or recognised subdivision of a survey number."

This provision clearly goes to show that this bar is attracted only if a notice is given under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Fragmentation Act. It is not the contention in this case that any such notice was given under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Fragmentation Act. The mere fact that this land is entered as a fragment in 7-12- extract does not prohibit the transfer of the land under the Fragmentation Act. I have so far pointed out that there are only two provisions in the Act inhibiting transfers of the fragments and I have so far pointed out that none of these two provisions are applicable in the instant case and so there can be no bar under the Fragmentation Act for enforeing the agreement of reconveyance.

Bombay High Court

Putalabai Lakhu Pawar And Ors. vs Shiva Dhondi Pawar And Ors. on 26 February, 1980

Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 Bom 9, (1981) 83 BOMLR 149

Bench: Deshpande

Print Page

When transfer of land is not prohibited under fragmentation and consolidation Act?

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both sides I have also gone through the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In so far as the applicability of Section 8 of the Act is concerned, I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant on several counts. Firstly, perusal of the judgments and orders passed by both the courts below discloses that no specific arguments have been advanced on applicability of Section 8 of the Act. It is also pertinent to note that no specific issue about the applicability of Section 8 has been framed by the trial Court. In any event, the submissions made by the learned Counsel that the transaction in question is hit by Section 8 of the Act does not hold water in view of the fact that the appellant has not placed any material either before the lower courts or before this Court that Section 8 of the Act is applicable in the present case. A bare perusal of Section 8 of the Act makes it dear that the same applies to the land in local area and transfer or partition of any land in local area so as to create the fragmentation is barred. The learned Counsel for the appellant is unable to point out that the suit property was in any local area. Whether the suit property falls in local area is not a pure question of law and as such I am unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the applicability of Section 8 is a pure question of law the appellant is entitled to raise this question in the second appeal. Without any foundation being laid by the appellant, in my opinion, the appellant can not permitted to take shelter of Section 8 to defeat the claim of the respondent for getting the relief of specific performance. In any event, as rightly submitted by Mr. Gupta the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not placed any material to prove that the notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued in respect of the said area, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on Section 8 of the Act is totally misplaced. Mr. Gupta is also right in contending that in any event Section 7 permits the transfer of fragmentation to contiguous owner of the contiguous survey number. In the absence of any specific pleadings by the present appellant that the agreement was hit by Section 8 of the Act, it is not possible to come to a finding that the findings given by both the courts below are perverse.

Bombay High Court

Namdeo Shamrao Waghmare vs Ramdas Shripat Waghmare on 30 September, 2004

Equivalent citations: 2005 (2) BomCR 829

JUDGE: Lavande A.P., J.

Print Page

Whether Fragment can be transferred to owner of contiguous survey number or an owner of a recognised sub-division of a survey number?

 Shri Andhyarujina, the learned Advocate-General, while defending the vires of section 7(1) of the Act, has taken us through the salient provisions of the Act. He has pointed out that the Act has been brought into force to prevent fragmentation of agricultural holdings and to provide for better cultivation thereof. The object of the Act is to avoid fragment which are often brought about by transfers, which is destructive of agricultural efficiency. The Act aims at consolidation of a fragments into standard areas so as to achieve more and better agricultural produce. According to Shri Andhyarujina, the provision of section 7 of the Act does not lay down a rule of pre-emption by vicinage. It does not confer a right on an adjoining land-holder to purchase an adjoining holding. All that section 7 of the Act seeks to do is to prohibit a transfer of a fragment to a person other than an owner of a contiguous survey number or an owner of a recognised sub-division of a survey number. What section 7 of the Act seeks to do is to permit the amalgamation of a fragment into an adjoining holding so as to make it into a standard holding rather than confer a right on an adjoining holder to purchase the property. The concerned provision aims at achieving maximum agricultural output. The provision is in respect of an agricultural land and the same cannot be impugned even if the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution has continued to hold the field.

5. Section 2(4) of the Act defines "fragment" to mean a plot of land of less extent than the appropriate standard areas determined under the Act. Section 2(5) of the Act defines "land" to mean agricultural land, whether alienated or unalienated. Section 2(6) defines "local area" to mean any area notified as such in the Official Gazette under section 3 of the Act. Section 2(10) of the Act defines "Standard area" in respect of any class of land to mean the area which the State Government may from time to time determine under section 5 as the minimum area necessary for profitable cultivation in any particular local area, and includes a standard area revised under the said section.

Bombay High Court

Mallu Tatya Suryavanshi vs Shripati Rama Gondhali And Ors. on 10 October, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1995 (2) BomCR 544

Bench: A Agarwal, K Baam

Print Page