Statutory charge on prepaid purchase money does not justify writ enforcement against Government without proper parties or contractual basis.

Under Chapter XX-C, admitted prepaid purchase money creates a statutory charge that follows the property unless validly avoided, but a writ of mandamus will not lie to compel the Central Government to pay the claimed amount where the contract allocates the remedy against the transferor and necessary parties are not before the court. The transferees could not establish the undisclosed payment in the joint proceedings, and the amount was not shown to have been accepted by the transferor. Relief in writ proceedings was therefore denied, without prejudice to the transferees' contractual remedy against the transferor for recovery of money paid under the agreement.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on compulsory purchase of immovable property under Chapter XX-C, the transferees were entitled to receive from the Central Government the amount of earnest money and further payment claimed by them, and whether a writ of mandamus could issue for such payment.

Analysis: Section 269UG requires the consideration to be tendered to the person or persons entitled thereto, and where there is a genuine dispute as to apportionment or title, the amount is to be deposited with the appropriate authority. In the absence of any dispute about the admitted payment of Rs. 4,55,000, the transferees' pre-paid purchase money constituted a statutory charge under section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which ran with the property even after vesting in the Central Government, unless the appropriate authority had annulled the encumbrance in accordance with Chapter XX-C. The agreement between the parties also showed that, if the Government did not pay that amount to the transferees, their contractual remedy was against the transferor. The undisclosed payment of Rs. 50,000 was not established in the joint proceedings before the authority and was not shown to have been accepted by the transferor. In these circumstances, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction could not be used to enforce payment contrary to the agreed allocation and without impleading necessary parties.

Conclusion: The transferees were not entitled to relief in writ proceedings against the Central Government for the claimed amount, except that they remained free to pursue their remedy against the transferor for recovery of the money paid under the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Chapter XX-C, admitted prepaid purchase money creates a statutory charge that follows the property unless validly avoided, but writ relief for its enforcement depends on the governing contract, the absence of unresolved apportionment or title issues, and proper impleadment of necessary parties.

---