AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J
This Application under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction:
i). the learned Official Liquidator may kindly be directed to give complete actual physical possession of the total auctioned land of 57 bighas and 6 biswas to the applicant/auction purchaser or to compensate the applicant proportionately for loss of such land;
ii). in the alternative, the Urban Improvement Trust-Bhilwara may kindly be directed to allot an equivalent land admeasuring 108155 square feet to the applicant in any of its scheme area in accordance with the Policy of 2010 as well as order dated 13.02.2015 issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan or to grant compensation to the applicant/auction purchaser for the deprivation of the land admeasuring 108155 square feet to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
iii). further, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Urban Improvement Trust-Bhilwara to grant compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (in words Rupees one crores only) for unwarranted and unnecessary harassment and agony caused to the applicant by taking away a part of the auctioned land without any authority of law.
iv). any other appropriate or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.”
Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the applicant-M/s. Geetanjali Infosystems Private Limited, are that during pendency of the Company Petition No.8/2000 (Union of India Vs. M/s. Mewar Textile Mills & Ors.), the property belonging to M/s Mewar Textile (under liquidation) was put to auction, and after finalization of the auction, a sale certificate was issued in favour of the present applicant/auction purchaser on 05.01.2010.
2.1. Thereafter, on 02.03.2010, the Official Liquidator handed over the symbolic possession of 57 bighas and 6 biswas of the auctioned land to the applicant/auction purchaser. Subsequently, on 12.06.2013, actual physical part-possession of the auctioned property was handed over to the applicant, except 1,08,155 square feet of the land, which was possession of the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Bhilwara, for the purpose of widening of the road proposed as Pragati Path and other works.
2.2. The applicant preferred an application for approval of the layout plan before the UIT. On 10.09.2018, the said layout plan was approved and the land was surrendered in favour of the UIT on 23.04.2019, and the same was duly accepted. The applicant also moved an application before the UIT for allotment of the Sale-able Facility Area on 07.05.2019 i.e. within 3 months from the date of acceptance by the UIT.
2.3 Thereafter, the applicant vide letter dated 21.01.2020, submitted before the UIT, pointed out that the Official Liquidator on 12.03.2013 and District Collector on 21.03.2013 have clearly informed the UIT not to undertake any development on the part of the auctioned land without carrying out acquisition proceeding or payment of compensation. The UIT replied the said letter on 03.02.2020 stating therein that the land was acquired for widening of the road, as per revised Master Plan-2035, and therefore, there was no question of any compensation in lieu of such land, by way, amongst others, of allotment of any other land for facility area.
2.4 Subsequently, when the matter was brought to the notice of the Official Liquidator by the applicant, the Official Liquidator addressed several letters to the UIT, requesting to explain whether in lieu of the land, any compensation has been awarded to the Official Liquidator of the applicant; the UIT furnished its response on 28.02.2020, reiterating its stand that no compensation is warranted in lieu of the land in question, for the reasons mentioned in its response.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite several requests and orders, the applicant is still not getting the due possession of the auctioned land, which the applicant is otherwise entitled to.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after approval of the layout plan and acceptance of surrender of the land, only about 52.53%, instead of 60% (as approved), of total land was approved for residential/commercial purposes, and thus, about 935994 Sq.ft. of land (being 60% of the total surrendered land) ought to have been approved for residential/commercial purposes.
3.1.1. It was thus submitted that only 824214 Sq.ft. of land was approved for such purposes, and about 108155 Sq.ft. of land was being illegally utilized by the UIT as per its whims and fancies, on the strength of Master Plan Road i.e. Pragati Path.
3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has not received the actual possession of the total land from the Official Liquidator, and has only received part-possession, that too, after more than 7 year from the date of finalization of the auction proceedings.
3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the layout plan of the auctioned property was approved with amendment on 10.09.2018, in accordance with the Policy of 2010, and that, as per the said policy, about 42% to 45% of the total land is to be reserved as roads, park and other facilities; the land so utilized for road i.e. 108155 sq.ft. is included in the facility area, as per amended layout plan, and thus, it was stated by the UIT that the payment of any compensation was not warranted as per the Policy of 2010. 3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the UIT has no material to show that any acquisition proceeding were undertaken or any order passed by the any Court or by the Official Liquidator, pertaining to the grievance of the applicant.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the applicant, submitted that the entire matter was completed in the year 2013, when the layout plan was approved; and the present application was filed in the year 2021, without furnishing any explanation for such an inordinate delay.
4.1. It was further submitted that the layout plan was approved with the condition that a part of the land, which was included in the road, shall be considered as facility area; the applicant has admitted that he has surrendered his land free of costs and has taken the benefits out of approval of the layout plan, with a view to settle the ratio of 60:40, in view of the Rajasthan Township Policy, 2010.
4.2. It was further submitted that the present application neither relates to the Company proceedings nor relates to the Company dispute. It was also submitted that the definition of the disputes is provided under the Section 581-ZO of the Companies Act, 1956, and the present application does not fall under the aforesaid Section. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the instant application deserves dismissal.
4.3. It was also submitted that no suit shall be instituted against the Trust or any of its Trustee without any notice under Section 98 of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959; in the present case, since no such notice was served, therefore, on that count also, the present application deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
This Court observes that the property of M/s. Mewar Taxtiles Mills (under liquidation) was put to auction and the auction was finalized and a sale certificate was issued in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, the possession of the property was delivered to the applicant and the applicant submitted a proposed layout plan before the UIT, Bhilwara as per the Rajasthan Township Policy, 2010 and the same was approved on 25.09.2013 with certain condition, and the said layout plan was amended and finally approved on 10.09.2018.
This Court further observes that as per the layout plan in question, the condition that the applicant surrenderred the land, for being used as road and considered to be a facility area by the UIT, as per the Rajasthan Township Policy, 2010. Therefore, on the one hand, the applicant got the layout plan approved with the condition to surrender its land before the UIT, while on the other, stated that the UIT is in illegal possession of some part of the land, which cannot be permissible under the law.
This Court also observes that the auction of the property in question was completed in the year of 2010 and the layout plan was also initially approved by the UIT in the year 2013; thereafter, the applicant filed the present application in the year 2021, after an inordinate delay, without any satisfactory explanation therefor.
This Court further observes that the layout plan in question was amended and finally approved in the year 2018, but despite of the same, the applicant did not take take any legal action regarding the UIT being in illegal possession of some part of the auctioned property in question.
This Court also observes that the applicant itself has given the consent and accepted the condition for surrender of the land and for approval of the layout plan, and thus, now the applicant cannot demand any compensation in lieu thereof.
Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the applicant in the present application.
Consequently, the instant application is dismissed.