SAMEER ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Civil Application No. 1448 of 2003 was filed by one M/s. Sameer Engineering Works, a Partnership Firm engaged in the activity of manufacturing machines like power looms and spare parts and for that purpose, the petitioner Firm has constructed a factory in area admeasuring 1511 Sq. Mtr. and 755.50 Sq. Mtr. of built up area on Final Plot No. 145/1 situated at Naroda, which is known as Old Malay Rubber Factory Compound.

(2.) The petitioner firm has challenged in the present petition, the high-handed action of respondent No.2 i.e. The Special Recovery Officer of the Vijay Co-Operative Bank Limited in giving possession of the premises to respondent No.4, namely, Mr. Pravinchandra Naranbhai Patel, Karta of Naranbhai N. Patel, H.U.F. and Pravinchandra N. Patel, H.U.F., Vice-Chairman of the respondent No.3 Bank, on 01.02.2003 despite the fact that on the said date, the sale was not confirmed as required to be confirmed under Section 179 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and, therefore, the action taken by the respondent No.2 in giving possession to respondent No.4 is in gross violation of Section 181 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The challenge made against the said action of the respondent No.2 on the ground that the premises worth Rs.1,44,00,000/= has been sold at a very law price of Rs. 68,00,000/= and that too to the Vice Chairman of the respondent No.3 Bank which itself shows that the respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 have met their hands in glove with a malafide intention to benefit respondent No.4. It was also challenged on the ground that the respondent No.2 in high-handed action gave possession of the premises to respondent No.4 on 01.02.2003 despite the fact that the sale of the premises is not confirmed by the Collector under Section 179 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and, therefore, it is in gross violation of Section 181 of the Code. It is further challenged on the ground that the procedure followed by respondent No.2 in auctioning the premises is in violation of the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code and the action of the respondent No.2 itself suffers from material irregularity and fraud.

(3.) Special Civil Application No. 1462/03 is filed by M/s. Karma Fabrics, M/s. Dhaval Corporation, M/s. Suraj Engineering Works and M/s. Shri Ram Engineering Works against the action of the respondent No.2, namely, The Special Recovery Officer of the Vijay Co-Operative Bank Limited i.e. respondent No.3 herein, in selling the rented premises of the petitioners in public auction to respondent No.4 as arrears of land revenue of respondent No.3 without adjudicating the fact that the present petitioners have tenancy rights in the premises which were sought to be sold. The said action of the respondent No.2 was challenged on the ground that no procedure as laid down in Bombay Land Revenue Code has been followed by the respondent No.2 before evicting the petitioners from the rented premises. It is also challenged on the ground that the said action is in breach of the principles of natural justice as no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners to point out that the premises sought to be sold are rented to the present petitioners. It was further challenged on the ground that respondent No.2 was aware that Civil Suit Nos.3768/02, 3769/02 and 3427/02 filed by the petitioners No.1,2 and 3 respectively, interalia praying for permanent injunction from dispossessing the petitioners from the premises by respondent No.2 were pending before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The auction was also challenged on the ground that the respondent No.2 has acted in high-handed manner by evicting the petitioners from the premises on 01.02.2003 and handing over the possession to respondent No.4 without confirmation of sale which is in gross violation of Section 181 of the Code. It was further challenged on the ground that the order dtd. 07.02.2003 passed by the respondent No.2 approving the sale of the premises in favour of respondent No.4 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, breach of principles of natural justice and abuse of powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and, therefore, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside.