The High Court dismissed an application seeking possession of auctioned land or compensation, noting the applicant's inordinate delay without explanation and their prior consent to surrendering the land under an approved layout plan.
The instant application is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Company Application No. 6/2021
M/s Geetanjali Infosystems Pvt Ltd, Vinayak Apartments, Flat No. 302, New Fatehpura, Near Saint Merry School, Udaipur313001
----Petitioner
Versus
The Official Liquidator Of M/s Mewar Textile Mills Limited, District Bhilwara
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Vineet Dave |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Rajesh Parihar, AGC. |
| Mr. Vinay Jain. | ||
| Mr. D.K. Meena,Official Liquidator |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 02/08/2023 Pronounced on 22/08/2023
“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 TrustBhilwara may kindly be directed to allot an equivalent land
(2 of 7)
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.”
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
(3 of 7)
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
(4 of 7)
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.
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.
(5 of 7)
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.
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.
(6 of 7)
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.
(7 of 7)
the applicant filed the present application in the year 2021, after an inordinate delay, without any satisfactory explanation therefor. 9. 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.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
104-SKant/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation or possession after surrendering land under an approved layout plan.
Whether the application maintains as it does not relate to Company proceedings under Section 581-ZO of the Companies Act, 1956.
Whether the application is maintainable as no notice was served under Section 98 of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s Geetanjali Infosystems Pvt Ltd
The Official Liquidator Of M/s Mewar Textile Mills Limited
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
