SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupareliya - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application Nos. 9565, 10059, 13188, 12848 of 2023
Decided On : 04-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Monal S. Chaglani, Mr. Pathik M. Acharya, Mr. Anmol A. Mehta.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jay Trivedi, AGP, Mr. C.Z. Sankhla, Mr. Bhaskar Sharma.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge of the Secured Creditor will precede over the charge of an Unsecured Creditor (Crowns Date) based on the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, Section 26E, and legal precedents.

Headnote:

Secured Creditor - Property Charge Dispute - SARFAESI Act, Section 26E, Gujarat Land Revenue Code, VAT Act - The court decided that the charge of the Secured Creditor will precede over the charge of an Unsecured Creditor (Crowns Date) based on the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, Section 26E, and legal precedents. The petitioners, as bonafide purchasers, were entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue records and the State's rejection based on delay was not accepted.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute involved auction purchasers seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records for properties purchased through auction from Banks. The State had created charges over the properties for sales tax dues, leading to a dispute over the priority of charges between the Secured Creditor and the State.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners, as bonafide purchasers, were entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue records and the State's rejection based on delay was not accepted. The court held that the charge of the Secured Creditor will precede over the charge of an Unsecured Creditor (Crowns Date) based on the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, Section 26E, and legal precedents.

Issues: The core issue was the priority of charges over the properties between the Secured Creditor and the State, specifically related to the mutation of names in the revenue records for properties purchased through auction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, Section 26E, and legal precedents, which established that the charge of the Secured Creditor will precede over the charge of an Unsecured Creditor (Crowns Date). The court also rejected the State's rejection of mutation based on delay, emphasizing the rights of bonafide purchasers.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondent authorities to mutate the names of each of the petitioners in the revenue record by quashing and setting aside any attachment/charge over the property in question by the State or its authorities as there was a first charge of the respondent Bank in each of the petitions. The rule was made absolute to the above extent, and there was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this set of petitions, though the prayers in each petitions are some what different, the core issue is related to who will have first charge over the property in question i.e. Secured Creditor or the State / Central Government (Crowns debt) on account of non-payment of dues of Sales Tax department and, therefore, all the matters were heard together and are now being decided together.

2. On 9.10.2023, this Court had passed the following order :-

    "1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta with learned advocate Mr. Anmol Mehta, learned advocate Mr. Pathik Acharya and learned advocate Mr. Monal Chaglani for the respective petitioners in each of the petitions. Learned AGP Mr. Jay Trivedi for the State and learned advocate Mr. Sankhala in Special Civil Application No. 13188 of 2023 for the Bank of Baroda. Learned advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sharma for the respondent No.4 in Special Civil Application No. 12848 of 2023. In rest of the petitions, though the respondents banks were served, on one appears. However, the matter was taken up finally as there was no prayer made against the bank and the prayer as can be seen from the prayer clause is against the State.

2. Rule. Learned respective advocates appearing for the State as well as for the bank as stated above waive service of rule.

3. The matter was heard extensively for final hearing. Arguments are concluded. Judgment reserved for orders."

3. All the petitioners in each of these petitions are the successful auction purchasers or their successors who have purchased the property by way of auction from the Bank or are subsequent purchasers from the auction purchaser and essentially, their grievance is about the fact that name in the revenue record are not mutated and are denied and, therefore, all these set of petitions are preferred with different prayers which are worded differently, but for the same purpose. Therefore, SCA No.12848 of 2023 is treated as lead petition and facts are stated from the said petition.

3. The prayers made in Special Civil Application No.12848 of 2023 reads as under :-

    "(A) to quash and set aside order dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure-A) passed below Entry No.7154 and order dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-B) below Entry No.4752 passed by Respondent No.2 - Mamlatdar;

(B) to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to mutate the name of Petitioner No.1 - SKMPL in the revenue records for the land bearing new Survey/Block No.109, Bhagya Laxmi Estate, Village : Rakanpur, Taluka : Kalol, District : Gandhinagar - 382 721 having Unique Property Identification Number : 10601033001090000 together with the construction standing thereon;

(C) to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to annul the charge of Respondent No.3 - Department on land bearing new Survey/Block No.109, Bhagya Laxmi Estate, Village : Rakanpur, Taluka : Kalol, District : Gandhinagar - 382 721 having Unique Property Identification Number : 10601033001090000 together with the construction standing thereon;

(D) to direct that pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, Respondent No.3 - Department be restrained from initiating any coercive action/recovery including issuance any notice against the Petitioners towards the Sales tax charge as registered with Respondent Nos.1 and 2;

(E) to direct that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, Respondent No.2 be restrained from making any entries in the revenue records against the title and interest of petitioner No.1 - SKMPL for land bearing new Survey/Block No.109, Bhagya Laxmi Estate, Village : Rakanpur, Taluka : Kalol, District : Gandhinagar - 382 721 having Unique Property Identification Number : 10601033001090000;"

3.1 The factual matrix of the case are that the dispute pertains to a land bearing Block No.496 (old Revenue Survey No.388/1, 401 and 414) situated at village Rakanpur, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar admeasuring 17,401 Sq. Mts. paiki Sub-plot Nos.5 and 6 admeasuring 1343.50 Sq. Mts. The aforesaid l

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top