JUDGMENT :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

Heard on I.A. No. 3058/2022.

2. This application has been filed by the applicants herein seeking the following reliefs :—

(i) Declaration that the proceeding initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer, City Ratlam, District Ratlam (M.P) upon the application filed by non-applicant No. 6 M/s Saad Trading Company Indore dated 15-3-2022 is unlawful and beyond the scope and jurisdiction of non-applicants No. 2 to 5;

(ii) Issuing the appropriate injunction/ direction/ order for quashing/setting aside the proceeding initiated by Sub-Divisional Officer, City Ratlam, District Ratlam (M.P) against applicants No. 1 to 4 upon application dated 15-3-2022 filed by M/s Saad Trading Company for recovery of actual physical possession from the applicants No. 1 to 4;

(iii) Issuing direction/order passed for quashing the order passed by the Tehsildar for formulating the team for recovery of actual physical possession from the applicants No. 1 to 4 and Panchnama prepared by Revenue Authorities dated 28-3-2022;

(iv) Granting permission for filing the appropriate Civil Suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction against non-applicant No. 1 to 6 against forcible dispossession of applicants No. 1 to 4. (v) all other remedies which are appropriate on the facts and in the grounds urged.”

3. The grievance of the applicants is that they are in possession of the land in question since more than 50 years and have also constructed around four rooms. The aforesaid property of the applicants has been directed to be vacated at the instance of Tehsildar as the Tehsildar, vide its order (undated) has formed a team for dispossessing the applicants from the land in question.

4. In brief, the facts of the case are that in the present company petition No. 2/2001, which has been filed for liquidation of M/s Maheshwari Proteins Ltd., the auction of the disputed land has been confirmed by this Court vide its order dated 25-7-2017, passed in OLR No. 44/2017 wherein, this Court has held as under :—

“Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the bid of M/s Saad Trading Company for Rs. 7 Lakhs in respect of Lot No. 1 is approved and accepted. The sale in favour of the aforesaid bidder for Lot No. 1 is confirmed subject to deposit of the balance consideration amount within a period of 30 days from today. On deposit of the balance consideration amount, the OL is permitted to execute the sale deed in respect of the assets/properties of Lot No. 1 in favour of M/s Saad Trading Company and handover the possession of those assets.”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the auction purchaser deposited the amount on 21-8-2017, and the sale deed was also executed. Subsequently, the Official Liquidator also wrote to the Collector, Ratlam on 9-3-2020, to ensure possession of the property to the auction purchaser.

6. Shri Vishal Lashkari, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the Official Liquidator as also the auction purchaser runs contrary to law as the applicants are in long possession of the property and cannot be evicted at the instance of Tehsildar specially when even in the auction notice dated 19-4-2017, the property was sold on as is where is basis and thereafter its symbolic possession was taken on 10-3-2022, specifically mentioning “as is where is possession and whatsoever there is basis”. Thus, it is submitted that the auction purchaser was well aware of the applicants’ possession on the property and had purchased the property on the aforesaid terms only hence, in such circumstances,