Partly allowed

M/S Zuari Infraworld India Limited v. M/S Mandya National Paper Mills

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023CA/253/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Company Court directed the Tahsildar to update revenue records regarding 3 acres 20 guntas of property conveyed via a deed of rectification and ordered the Block Education Officer to handover possession to the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to change revenue records within two weeks; Respondent No.3 directed to handover possession within four weeks of record change.

M/S Zuari Infraworld India Limited Vs M/S Mandya… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46904 CA No. 253 of 2018 IN COP No.112 of 1994

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 253 OF 2018

¶6

¶7

COMPANY PETITION NO.112 OF 1994

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S ZUARI INFRAWORLD INDIA LIMITED ZUARI GARDEN CITY, HULIKERE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/PROJECT IN CHARGE SR HARSHA RAJA URS

¶10

…APPLICANT

¶11

(BY SRI. THOMAS V PETER., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S MANDYA NATIONAL PAPER MILLS REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, 12TH FLOOR, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

2 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶16

3 BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI K S MAHADEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR OL

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46904 CA No. 253 of 2018 IN COP No.112 of 1994

¶20

SRI SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)

¶21

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED U/R 6 & 9 OF THE COMPANY COURT RULES, 1959, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION IN THE MATTER OF COMPLETION OF SURVEY WORK AND CHANGES IN THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THE PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN CONVEYED BY HIM IN TERMS OF ORDERS PASSED IN C.A. NO 533/2014 AND DELIVER AND HANDOVER PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.

¶22

THIS APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The present application is filed under Rule 6 and 9

¶25

of the Company Court Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as

¶26

‘the Rules’) seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

“a) wherefore the applicants prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to take necessary action in the matter of completion of survey work and changes in the revenue records of the property that has been conveyed by him in terms of orders passed in c.a. no 533/2014 and deliver and handover physical possession of the property, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

b) wherefore the applicants prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the 2^nd respondent to make necessary changes in the revenue records of the property that has been conveyed to the applicants in terms of the order passed in CA 533/2014 in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶29

It is the case of the applicant that it purchased

¶30

property of a total extent of 73.65 acres situated at Hulikere village, Belagula Hobli, Srirangapattanba, Mandya District which belonged to Respondent No.1 – company in liquidation through

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46904 CA No. 253 of 2018 IN COP No.112 of 1994

¶32

a public auction for a total sale consideration of `36 crores. That the same was confirmed by this Court and the Sale Deed dated 12.12.2007 was executed in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, since certain discrepancies were noticed and there was a shortfall of 3 acres 20 guntas, the applicant filed C.A. No.533/2014 and this Court vide order dated 21.08.2014 disposed of the said application and directed the Official Liquidator to execute appropriate document to convey the extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in the Survey numbers as recorded in the said order. Accordingly, a deed of rectification dated 14.10.014 has been registered.

¶33

It is the further case of the applicant that consequent to the execution of the Deed of Rectification, the Official Liquidator by his letters dated 14.10.2014 and 08.01.2015 requested the Tahsildar, Srirangapattana Taluk, Mandya District to complete the survey and demarcate the boundaries as well as to transfer the Khatha and RTC in favour of the applicant.

¶34

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that it was earlier known as M/s. Adventz Infra World India Limited and

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46904 CA No. 253 of 2018 IN COP No.112 of 1994

¶36

subsequently the name has been changed as that of the applicant in the present case as mentioned in the cause title.

¶37

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that despite the request made by the Official Liquidator and despite the proceedings dated 17.01.2015 that have been held in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, the change of revenue records in respect of the remaining extent of 3 acres 20 guntas that has been conveyed to it vide the Deed of Rectification dated 14.10.2014 has not been completed by the Respondent No.2. It is further stated that a Government School is existence in the said portion of the property and possession of the same is required to be handed over by Respondent No.3.

¶38

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the survey has been completed and the boundaries have been fixed and what remains to be done is the changing of the records and handing over of the physical possession of the property. It is further submitted that with respect to the Government School, Respondent No.3 has already indicated that after completion of the process of changing the revenue

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46904 CA No. 253 of 2018 IN COP No.112 of 1994

¶40

records, they would vacate the premises and move to a nearby premises for the purpose of running a school and this aspect of the matter has been placed on record in the letter dated 13.1.2015 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2.

¶41

In response to present application, respondent No.2 has filed affidavit dated 04.10.2023. After placing relevant facts on record Respondent No.2 has stated that he has no jurisdiction to change the RTC in the name of the Petitioner.

¶42

After noticing the relevant facts, it is clear and forthcoming that the property of Respondent No.1 - company in liquidation of an extent of 73.26 guntas has been purchased by the applicant and the details of the property purchased is forthcoming from the schedule to the deed of rectification dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure-A to the application). The said purchase having been completed in accordance with law, it is incomprehensible as to how Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would cause any obstruction to the change of the revenue records in respect of the entire extent of property purchased by the applicant as well as for handing over the possession of the property purchased by the applicant.

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46904 CA No. 253 of 2018 IN COP No.112 of 1994

¶44

In view of the aforementioned, the relief sought for

¶45

by the applicant in the present application is required to be granted and the following order is passed:

¶46

i) The application is partly allowed.

¶47

ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to make necessary changes in the revenue records of the property that has been conveyed to the applicant in terms of the order dated 21.08.2014 passed in C.A. No.533/2014 and in terms of the schedule mentioned in the registered Deed of Rectification dated 14.10.2014.

¶48

iii) Respondent No.3 shall deliver and handover the physical possession of the property purchased by the applicant which is in the possession of Respondent No.3.

¶49

iv) The needful to be done by Respondent No.2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and needful to be done by Respondent No.3 within four weeks of the change in the revenue records.

¶50

ordered accordingly.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

M/S Zuari Infraworld India Limited v. M/S Mandya National Paper Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Zuari Infraworld India Limited v. M/S Mandya National Paper Mills

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Purushothama H H Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Raghavendra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Devaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Fanuc India Private Limited Vs M/S Evergreen Machine Tool and Automation Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Shriram Joshi Vs M/S Sycone Cpmc Private Limited

The Hassan District Central Co. -Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies