High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shri Murli Dhar v. Shrimati Savitri Devi & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 3222 of 1980  RD-AH 13552 (17 August 2006)
Court No. 9.
Company Application No. 5 of 1996
Company Petition No. 22 of 1984
In the matter of
M/S. U.P. Glass Works Ltd. ( In Liq.)
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Order On Application No. 151929 of 2006.
Heard Sri Amit Saxena, in support of the application under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 on behalf of the eleven Ex workmen and their representatives of the company (in Liquidation), who have claimed to have purchased the eleven quarters inside the factory premises in a public auction by revenue department. They have prayed to exclude the eleven quarters from the orders dated 25.4.2006 and 17.7.2006 and to restrain the Official Liquidator from taking possession and selling the said quarters. Necessary facts for deciding the application can be found in the order dated 30.2.2006. Today Sri Amit Saxena has filed a sketch map prepared by the Assistant Superintendent , Board of Revenue, U.P. (Nirman Vibhag), Lucknow dated 24.2.1982 which, he claims, was part of the sale proclamation describing the documents as Annexure-B, attached by the Revenue Department for realisation of the Government dues.
This Sketch map does not give measurement, boundary and the area. It describes a much larger portion in Annexure-A, than is alleged to be purchased by the applicant.
The circumstances in which only eleven quarters were sold have not been clarified. The area and the measurement of eleven quarters has not been provided. Annexure-'B' of the sale proclamation is a much larger area including the land and
construction. The fact that the eleven applicants bidded through
Sri Umeshwar Dayal Garg does not help the applicants. It is admitted that the sale certificate has not been issued inspite of the directions of this Court in writ petition No. 25477 of 1992 decided on 8.8.1994. In absence of sale certificate, the applicant do not get ownership of the land. Rule 285-M of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 is quoted as below:
" Sec. 285-M (1) After a sale of holding or other immovable property under the Act has been confirmed in the manner aforesaid, the Collector shall put the person declared to be purchaser into possession of such property and shall grant him a certificate to the effect that he has purchased the property to which the certificate refers and such certicate shall be deemed to be a valid transfer of such property, but need not be registered as a conveyance except as provided by Section 89 of the Registration Act, one nine zero eight.
(2) The certificate shall state the name of the person declared at the time of sale to be the actual purchaser and any suit brought or application made in a civil or Revenue Court against the certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of another person not the certified purchaser, though by agreement the name of the certified purchaser was used shall be dismissed with costs."
The list attached with the report of the Tehsildar referred to in the order dated 3.8.2006 by which he was required to submit report to the Court about exact status of the company properties, in pursuance of the orders in Company Application No. 5 of 996 dated 4.4.1997 gives the status of
land and occupation as on that date. In the list of unauthorized and authorized occupants of 63 quarters of the company prepared by him, the applicant's names are not included.
Sri Amit Saxena submits that in the five years assessment register of the Nagar Palika Parishad Bahjoi from April 1990 to 31.3.1995 Sri K.C. Varshney, the then Managing Director of the Company ( In Liq.) is shown to be owner of 29 quarters of house no. 200, Railway Road, and the occupants includes the including eleven applicants.
The applicants could not explain as to why they did not apply for mutation and their names are still shown only as occupiers of the company property in the five year assessment of municiple records of Bahjoi from April, 1990 to 31st March, 1995.
All these facts taken together coupled with the findings recorded by District Judge, Moradabad and the orders passed on the objection on the order of the District Judge goes to show that the property was leased out to company with condition of return when the company stop its business . The Court has already decided the questions of the lessors of the property. The land should returned back to them after removing constructions. Orders were issued for delivery of the possession to the lessor.
The applicants have not been able to establish their ownership inasmuch as:
(a) The area and the measurement of eleven quarters have not been given.
(b) In the site plan annexed to the sale proclamation an area larger than the area is alleged to be purchased by the applicant through Sri Umeshwar Garg.
(c) It is not clear whether the applicant also purchased the lease hold rights which in any case terminated along with the original lease. The at best purchased only the construction of the unidentified land.
(d)the sale certificates giving the extract property purchased by the applicant have not been issued as yet (e) the applicant was not shown to be occupier of these eleven quarters in the report of the Tehsildar in pursuance of the directions of this Court, and;
(f) the applicant did not file any objection in these proceedings pending since 1994.
The application is accordingly rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.