In a significant legal case concerning a housing scheme for bank employees, the Supreme Court of India has issued a ruling on the land transfer dispute. The case involves a dispute between a bank and a housing society regarding the transfer of land and ownership rights. This judgment addresses the concerns raised by both parties and provides a resolution to the longstanding issue. Read on to discover the full details of the Supreme Court’s decision on this matter.
Facts
- The Appellant, a bank, undertook a housing scheme for its peon employees by purchasing 14 plots in 1973.
- The plots were divided into 16, and 28 tenements were constructed, with 2 plots remaining vacant.
- Employees paid for construction costs and took loans, but the lease deed was not executed on time.
- Legal issues arose as employees were not granted ownership despite loan repayment and completion of formalities.
- State Commission found the bank deficient in service for delay in lease deed execution, causing financial loss to the employees.
- The bank was directed to bear costs for renewal and registration of the lease deed.
Arguments
- The State Commission ordered all expenses in the registration of the lease deed to be borne by the appellant bank.
- It is a common practice for the purchaser to bear the burden of stamp duty and registration charges.
- Even if the lease deed is transferred to the Society, the expenses should be borne by the Society or its members, not the bank.
- Out of the 16 plots, only 14 have been utilized, and two remain vacant and unallocated.
- Therefore, it is impractical to fully implement the State Commission’s order.
- The two vacant plots remain the property of the bank and cannot be leased to the Society.
- The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the order of the State Commission should be set aside.
- Mr. Deshmukh represented the Appellant as the Advocate.
- Mr. Kishor Ram Lambat represented the Respondent.
- Mr. Satyajit A Desai represented another Respondent.
- The counsel argued that the State Commission’s order is not justified on two specific counts.
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Analysis
- The Appellant never intended to transfer interest in two plots to employees or their society.
- Tenements were constructed by the Appellant for employee housing needs with extended loan facilities at comfortable interest rates.
- State Commission’s order regarding certain plots and extra charges imposed on tenement holders.
- Assertion that the value of the two plots in question was significant.
- Absence of evidence suggesting the decision to transfer interest in the two plots.
- Resolution for land transfer to employees passed on 21.01.2004.
- No delay or refusal on Appellant’s part in executing the transfer resolution.
- Possibility of increased stamp duty for the society due to delayed document execution.
- Cost division for land and tenement construction, with tenants reimbursing the amount.
- Lack of indication that tenement holders had interest in the two vacant plots.
- Non-involvement of Petitioner No.1 or its members in initial allotment process by Bank.
- Ease of transferring lease deed to Petitioner No.1 or its members post renewal.
- Requirement for stamp duty payment as per current law for lease deed transfer.
- Order for Appellant to share 50% of total expenses for delayed free registration opportunity.
- Acknowledgement of contributions made by all tenement holders towards land costs.
- Confirmation of no profit motive and recovery of only actual costs incurred by the Appellant.
- The appellant provided housing support to its employees, not as a service provider but as a helping hand.
- The appellant claimed no profit and incurred significant interest burden for the employees’ benefit.
- The matter was considered maintainable under the Act, although disputed by the appellant.
- No deficiency or wrongdoing was found on the part of the appellant.
- The orders of the State Commission and National Commission were set aside.
- The appellant was directed to either pay Rs. 10,000 to each tenement holder or convey interest in 28 tenements and the land within specified timelines.
- Stamp duty for the documents to be borne by the housing society.
- The appellant retains rights to the portion of land with no tenements.
- In case of payment, the housing society is entitled to convey interest in the specified properties.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Decision
- Respondent No.1 in option ‘e’ in para 13 accepted the plea
- Appellant directed to pay each tenement holder Rs.10,000 in compensation
- Appellant given the option to either pay the compensation or transfer the land to the Society
- The Appeals allowed in the mentioned terms with no costs
Case Title: THE MANAGER THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOP. BANK LTD Vs. FARMER BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
Case Number: C.A. No.-008606-008606 / 2019
