Urgent Opinion Required : Sale Deed having a clear demarcati

R. Prasad (Querist) 26 March 2010 This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts,

There was an agricultural land with number 105 and area 0.902 Hectare on a road side in the name of Mr. KP. The said road connects two towns( Town A and Town B) of the same district of UP. Some 4-5 years back I bought a portion of the land (No. 105). The sale deed for the said portion measuring 0.135 Hectare, square in shape, mentioning the boundaries - in North - road connecting town A and town B, in East – land of X and others, in South – the remaining portion of the land 105 of Mr. KP and in West - the remaining portion of the land 105 of Mr. KP, got executed by Mr. KP in the name of my wife V on date D.
After the execution of the above sale deed, Mr. KP executed another sale deed for another portion of land 105 in the name of N on the same date D. The descriptions for the second portion in the sale deed to N, are: area 0.65 Hectare, boundaries- in North - road connecting town A and town B, in East – land of V, in South – the remaining portion of the land 105 of Mr. KP and in West - the land of Y and others.
After the execution of the above mentioned sale deeds, the sale deeds along with parties were presented in the office of registrar for registration on the same date D. N got its sale deed registered with registration number R1 while V got its sale deed registered later with registration number R2.
Last year one KSK dealership from IOCL was rostered in my village on road connecting the towns A & B. The land requirement was 70ft X 70ft for KSK dealership. There were three applications from V, K and R. All the three applicants were called for interview and the result was declared on the same date by IOCL. K did not qualify as K got 0 marks against land & infrastructure. V got placed first and R got placed second. And V was the selected candidate.
But on the next day, K filed a Writ Petition in HC against IOCL alleging that there was favouritism and IOCL has awarded 0 marks in arbitrary manner. Moreover, V, the selected candidate was not made party. WP was heard by the HC and HC order that there is alternate remedy available i.e. the IOCL grievance redresal authority. HC further directed the IOCL to dispose of the matter within 3 months. Thereby, K & R submitted their representation complaints to IOCL. IOCL (state unit GM) called V, K & R and heard them one by one. After hearing, the GM/IOCL constituted one committee to investigate the complaints of K & R. During the investigation the investigating Officer asked me to bring the original sale deed of V and N. The same were shown to the officer.
Finally, in compliance of the HC order, GM/IOCL took the decision on basis of the report submitted by Investigating Committee, and cancelled the selection and ordered re-interview. GM/IOCL dismissed the complaints/allegations of K & R and stated that on basis of the report from Investigating Committee, IOCL erred in awarding 29 marks for land & infra. to V as V has not submitted the consent from co-owners - Mr. KP and N, of land 105 along with the application. Not submitting consent is in the contravention of the IOCL policy, said GM/IOCL.
Now my question is that even if there are clear boundaries of V’s portion in land 105, V is not free to use it for any purpose. V has to take consent from Mr. KP and N?
Or another interpretation of GM/IOCL could be that since N’s sale deed was registered before V’s sale deed‘s registration, N becomes first co-owner with Mr. KP in land 105, then the boundary of V’s portion vis-a-vis with N’s portion becomes unclear and that is why V has to take consent from N and/or Mr. KP.
How much this interpretation is legally sustainable? Please advise me the remedy if any as there is no appellate authority in IOCL.
Please note that a land measuring 0.135 H, square in shape has dimension 120ft X 120ft while IOCL’s requirement is 70ft X 70ft.
Thanks a lot
Sincerely
M. P.

Follow Query

Report Abuse