LALIT V MANSINGHANI INDEQUIP ENGINEERING LTD Vs. URBAN LAND TRIBUNAL AND EX OFFICIO ADDITIONAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two intra-court appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 24.08.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7278 of 1992, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeals and the questions raised herein are that on coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act), 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Indequip Engineering Limited (hereinafter referred as the 'company') filed a statement under Section 6 of the Act on 13.08.1976 giving the following details of land held by it: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1041_TLGJ0_2010Html1.htm</FRM> On the basis of the statement filed under Section 6 and after giving sufficient opportunity of presenting its case to the company, the Competent Authority passed an order on 12.04.1991 under Section 8(4) of the Act declaring 47,374 square meters of land as excess vacant land. An appeal preferred by the company under Section 33 of the Act against the said order was rejected by the Urban Land Tribunal by an order dated 27.04.1992 observing that despite grant of several opportunities the company did not produce any evidence to prove that construction, if any, on the lands in question was carried out before the appointed day and that such construction had been put up authorisedly. An appeal, being Appeal No. Ahmedabad 98 of 1991 was also preferred by the Bank of India in whose favour the land was mortgaged. The same was rejected by the Tribunal by an order dated 28.02.1992. Notification under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act was issued on 19.05.1992 and consequently the said 47,374 square meters of land stood vested in the State Government. Notice under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act was issued on 20.08.1992 to take possession of the land in question. As possession was not voluntarily handed over by the holder, actual possession of the excess vacant land was taken on 6.10.1992 after drawing a panchnama in presence of the panchas. Against the dismissal of appeal by Tribunal and notice dated 20.08.1992 issued under Section 10(5) of the Act, the company filed Special Civil Application No. 7278 of 1992. By an order dated 2.03.1994, learned Single Judge of this Court admitted the petition and directed parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land. During the pendency of the petition, on a civil suit filed by Bank of India, an order came to be passed by the Civil Court on 13.04.1994 appointing a Receiver at the instance of the Bank, for taking possession of the properties belonging to the company and its disposal for realization of dues of the Bank. An application, being Civil Application No. 8691 of 2004, came to be filed by the Receiver for being joined as co-petitioner in the petition filed by the company. By an order dated 17.02.2005, the said application was allowed and the Receiver was joined as petitioner no. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 7278 of 1998. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition. Against the said decision, the Receiver has preferred Appeal No. 1400 of 2005. The Bank, who was respondent in the writ petition, has also filed Appeal No. 183 of 2006. As challenge in these appeals is to the same judgment, both are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) Mr. Medh, leaned Advocate for the appellant in Appeal No. 1400 of 2005 Receiver of the company, has made the following submissions: