Back
2010 Supreme(Raj) 981
[Citation : 2011(2) RLW 996 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
A.V.V.N.L. & Anr. Vs. Ganesh Bhoomi Vikas Sansthan (Tatia, J.)
HON'BLE PRAKASH TATIA, J.
HON'BLE S.P. PATHAK, J.
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
Versus
Ganesh Bhoomi Vikas Sansthan & Ors.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 906 of 2009 and
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Def) No.4026 of 2010, decided on 22.11.2010
Virendra Lodha & G.K. Garg, for Appellants;
R.P. Garg, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Sec. 83; Companies Act, 1956 — Jurisdiction of the Collector to interfere in the auction proceedings of the properties of company in liquidation conducted by official liquidator appointed by Company Court — Held — The proceedings referred in these matters by the appellants are nothing but Collateral, incidental and fiscal only — The Revenue Minister has no jurisdiction to ignore the order passed by the competent court of law having all the jurisdiction with respect to transfer of property of company in liquidation — Revenue Minister rightly held that the order passed by District Collector contrary to High Court order cannot be allowed to stand. (Paras 15 to 20)
Appeal dismissed.
jktLFkku Hkw-jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 83( dEiuh vf/kfu;e] 1956 & dEiuh U;k;ky; }kjk fu;qDr jktdh; lekid }kjk lekiu esa dEiuh dh ifjlEifr;ksa dh lEikfnr uhykeh dh dk;Zokgh esa gLr{ksi djus dh dysDVj dh vf/kdkfjrk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vihykFkhZ }kjk bu ekeyksa esa lUnfHkZr dk;Zokgh lkaikf'oZd] vkuq"kafxd vkSj jkt foRrh; ds flok; dqN Hkh ugha gS & dEiuh tks lekiu esa gS mldh lEifr ds vUrj.k ds lEcU/k esa lEiw.kZ vf/kdkfjrk okys l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dh mis{kk djus dh jktLo ea=h dks dksbZ vf/kdkfjrk ugha & jktLo ea=h }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djuk mfpr Fkk fd mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds foijhr ftyk dysDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dks fLFkj jgus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk ldrhA
vihysa [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 15 ls 20½
Hon'ble TATIA, J.—An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been submitted for condonation of delay of 607 days in Special Appeal (def) No. 4026/10. Since the other connected special appeal no. 906/09 having foundational order which is under challenge is in time therefore, in the fitness of the case, we deem it fit to condone the delay.
2. These Special Appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.4.2008 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7572/07 “Municipal Board, Kishangarh vs. Ganesh Bhoomi Sansthan & Ors. by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the Municipal Board, Kishangarh challenging the order dated 3.4.2007 passed by the Revenue Minister in the revision petition filed by the respondent no.1 Ganesh Bhoomi Vikas Sansthan. The respondent no.1 preferred the revision against the order of Collector dated 16.9.87 whereby; land of 14 bigha 11 biswas of Khasra no. 1140/2 was set apart and transferred to the then Municipal Board, presently the Municipal Council, Kishangarh. This order dated 16.9.1987 was set aside in the revision by the Hon'ble Minister.
3. The learned Revenue Minister set aside the said order dated 16.9.1987 on the ground that the land in question was purchased by the respondent no.1 in public auction conducted by the official liquidator appointed by the Company Judge in the company petition under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and same was confirmed by the order of the learned Company Judge dated 10.1.85 in the liquidation proceedings against Sumer Electricals, therefore, same land after two years could not have been set apart by the District Collector and could not have been given to Municipal Board.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the Municipal Board, Kishangarh after considering section 83 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1956) which empowers the state government to call for records of any non judicial proceedings not connected with settlement and to pass appropriate order.
5. Learned Single Judge also held that in the company case the notice inviting tender was published on 19.12.84 and thereafter the sale was finalized on 10.1.85 in company petition by the order of the High Cort and the order passed by the Collector of setting apart of the land was contrary to the order of Company Judge and as such, the Revenue Minister has not committed any error in passing the order dated 3.4.2007.
6. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. also preferred a writ petition no. 2694/08 challenging the same order passed by the Revenue Minister dated 3.4.2007 and that writ petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 2.7.2008 by which the learned Single Judge on the basis of the decision given in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7572/07, dismissed the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the Municipal Board submitted that the then erstwhile Company Sumer Electricals in view of the order dated 6.4.48, copy of which is placed as Annexure R/1/1, did not deposit the requisite amount for obtaining patta of the land so as to have title vest in the said company.
8. It is also submitted that the respondent no.1 submitted an application for permission to raise construction before the Municipal Board, Kishangarh which was rejected by the Municipal Board and against that order of refusal, the respondent no.1 preferred a writ petition no. 2853/91 which is disposed of by this court on 19.2.2003 and direction was issued to the Additional Collector, Ajmer to decide the mutation appeal preferred by the respondent no.1.
9. It is also submitted that the appeal preferred by the respondent against the mutation in favour of Municipal board was dismissed by the learned Additional Collector, Ajmer vide order dated 18.6.2003.
10. According to the learned counsel for the Municipal Board in the mutation proceedings as well as construction permission proceedings orders have been passed against the respond
