Mandatory statutory formalities blocked title transfer, while a re-transfer agreement remained enforceable through specific performance and restitution.

Non-compliance with mandatory statutory formalities for transfer of immovable property vested in a District Board prevented title from passing under an auction sale and release, because the sale certificate was not a registered conveyance and the release did not satisfy the prescribed execution requirements. By contrast, the Board's offer to re-transfer the land to the original owner, accepted by deposit of the stated amount, created a binding and subsisting contract. The court treated later refund applications as insufficient to show rescission or abandonment, and held the claim within limitation. Cross-objections were maintainable in the special circumstances, and the respondent obtained specific performance, confirmation of possession, and restitution with interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the auction sale and release executed by the District Board validly transferred title to the purchaser; (ii) whether the original owner's agreement with the District Board for re-transfer of the land was enforceable and remained subsisting; (iii) whether the respondent could sustain cross-objections and obtain specific performance, confirmation of possession, and restitution of the amount deposited.

Issue (i): whether the auction sale and release executed by the District Board validly transferred title to the purchaser.

Analysis: Title vested in the District Board under the Land Acquisition Act when possession was taken. Any transfer of immovable property vested in the Board had to comply with the statutory requirements governing Board transfers. The sale certificate was not a registered conveyance, and the release, though registered, did not satisfy the prescribed statutory formality of execution by the Chairman and two members. The applicable statutory rules were held to be within power and mandatory, not merely directory, so non-compliance prevented any transfer of title. The documents also could not constitute a valid contract for sale because the prescribed formalities for such a contract were not observed.

Conclusion: The purchaser acquired no enforceable title by the auction sale or release.

Issue (ii): whether the original owner's agreement with the District Board for re-transfer of the land was enforceable and remained subsisting.

Analysis: The Board offered to re-transfer the land to the original owner on payment of the stated amount, and the offer was accepted by deposit of the money. That transaction amounted to a binding contract. A later, broader arrangement did not displace the earlier one because it was not inconsistent with it and, in any event, was inoperative in law. The subsequent applications for refund did not amount to a clear abandonment or rescission of the contract, especially since the money was never returned or tendered, possession was never sought back by the Board, and both sides continued to act as though the agreement remained in force. The claim was also within limitation.

Conclusion: The contract for re-transfer remained enforceable, and the respondent was entitled to specific performance.

Issue (iii): whether the respondent could sustain cross-objections and obtain specific performance, confirmation of possession, and restitution of the amount deposited.

Analysis: In the special circumstances of the case, the appeal opened the whole controversy, the District Board supported the appellants, and the cross-objections were necessary to protect the respondent's rights. The appellate court could grant appropriate relief against the Board. Since the respondent had paid money under the failed later arrangement, he was entitled to restitution of that sum with interest, while the original contract entitled him to specific performance and confirmation of possession.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were maintainable and succeeded, and the respondent obtained specific performance, confirmation of possession, and restitution with interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeals by the purchaser failed, the respondent's cross-objections succeeded, title did not pass by the impugned auction documents, and the respondent was granted specific performance with consequential reliefs and monetary restitution against the District Board.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory body transfers immovable property only in a prescribed statutory mode, non-compliance with the mandatory formality prevents transfer of title, while a valid contract for re-transfer accepted and acted upon remains specifically enforceable unless clearly rescinded or abandoned.

---