2025 (1) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nish Dhingra, Adv. ORDER This Order disposes of the Appeal Nos. FPA-PBPT-855/HYD/2019, FPA-PBPT-897/HYD/2019 and FPA-PBPT-901/HYD/2019 filed under Section 46(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA) by M/s North Star Homes, Shri Rachakonda Srinivas Rao and M/s. Padmanabha Marktech Pvt. Ltd. respectively against the Order dated 25.06.2019 (Impugned Order) under Section 26 (3) of PBPTA passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in Reference No.R-884/2018. The Impugned Order confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 28.05.2018, under Section 24 (4) (b) (i) of the PBPTA passed by the Initiating Officer (IO) of the BPU, Hyderabad. 2. We note the following relevant details of the case: Reference No.884/2018 Beneficial Owner: Rachakonda Srinivas Rao Benamidar: M/s Padmanabha Marktech Pvt Ltd. Interested Parties: M/s North Star Homes Transaction amount: Total consideration to be paid was Rs. 2,35,00,000/- out of which M/s Padmanabha Marktech Pvt. Ltd. paid only Rs. 1,94,00,000/. Appellant was liable to execute the final sale deed on receipt of full consideration on payment of remaining unpaid amount. 3. Ld. Counsels for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that too before the enactment of amendment to the Benami Act which was made enforceable only from 1st November, 2016. It was also contended that the Respondent BPU, Hyderabad failed to establish that the funds for the said transaction were provided by Shri. Rachakonda. 5. Ld. Counsels for the Appellants submitted that the Reference No.884/2018 dated 08.06.2018 u/s 24(5) of the PBPTA, made by the IO is bad in law. Moreover, PBPTA is not applicable to this case as the agreement of sale for the purchase of the impugned property was of earlier period with all future benefits accruing to the prospective buyer only upon completion of construction and transfer of title. The agreement to sale was not finally executed and converted in the form of sale, till date. Since the amended PBPTA came into force only from 1st November 2016, hence, there is no scope for retrospective application of the punitive law. Ld. Counsels also contended that the alleged Benamidar directly entered in an Agreement of Sale with M/s North Star Homes to purchase the property for which requisite consideration was paid from own sources through proper and valid banking channels. Ld. Counsel for Shri Rachakonda, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent circumventing the law. In view of the above, Ld. Adjudicating Authority correctly confirmed the Provisional Attachment of the impugned property. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent prayed for dismissal of the Appeals. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It is an admitted fact that only partial payment has been made by the alleged Benamidar to the interested party M/s North Star Homes. The partial payment was made on signing of Agreement of Sale. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is reproduced below: - Section 54. "Sale" defined. - "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. - Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment to sell creates no interest in land. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the property in the land gets conveyed only by registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that the lands sought to be covered were having value of more than Rs 100. Therefore, unless there was a registered document of sale in favour of the proposed transferee agreement-holders, the title of the lands would not get divested from the vendor and would remain in his ownership. There is no dispute on this aspect. However, strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for Respondent 3 on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. We fail to appreciate how that section can at all be relevant against the third party like the appellant State. That section provides for a shield of protection to the proposed transferee to remain in possession against the original owner who has agreed to sell these lands to the transferee if the proposed transferee satisfies other conditions of Section 53-A. That protection is available as a shield only against the transferor, the proposed vendor, and would disentitle him from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferees who are put in possession pursuant t....