9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvisaged under the Companies Act, 1956. 2. M/s. Petrofils Co-operative Limited was a National Cooperative Society (the Society for short) in which the Government of India had 84% share capital. The Society was included in Schedule II to the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. For the purpose of manufacturing polyester filament yarn, the said Society was formed, in which Government of India was a majority stakeholder to the extent of 84%. The Society was a co-operative society registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. For the purpose of developing the industry Petrofils and township for the employees and staff of Petrofils, land was needed. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC for short) constituted under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 (GID Act for short), applied to the State Government for acquisition of land for the Society, necessary for such public purpose. The State Government under a notification dated 9.6.1978 decided to acquire the required land for public purpose, namely, for establishment of Petrofils industry and construction of a township for employees of Petrofils at Vadodara. The Government contributed a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores (rounded off) with interest from the Society failing which the bank would take measures under the Securitisation Act. The liquidator responded to such notice under a communication dated 17.9.2007 raising objections. On 28.9.2007 IDBI bank conveyed to the liquidator that objections cannot be accepted and called upon him to handover the possession of secured assets. Before expiry of statutory period of 60 days of notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, liquidator filed Special Civil Application No.26713 of 2007 before this Court challenging the said notice issued by the IDBI bank. The Court disposed of the petition on 16.10.2007 in view of the fact that parties engaged in litigation were public sector undertakings and without permission from the high power committee, the litigation could not have been instituted. 6. After getting permission from such committee, the liquidator filed Special Civil Application No.4353 of 2008 and in the petition, he challenged the notice dated 16.8.2007 issued by IDBI under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. By way of amendment two prayers were added. First was for a declaration that in view of the provisions contained in Mul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on report shall be completed by 31.01.2009. IDBI, which is the lead secured creditor, respondent No.1 herein, shall also be at the liberty to get the valuation report prepared of the assets of the property by the Government approved valuer, but such process for preparation of the valuation report shall be completed by 31.01.2009. The petitioner shall permit access to the assets so as to enable the valuer to prepare the report at the instance of IDBI which is the lead secured creditor. iv. Whichever highest valuation report is available on the record of the property concerned, shall be the basis for fixation of the upset price for the respective assets, may be in one lot or different lot as may be finalised by the Committee. The process for issuing advertisement, open bid, inter se bidding amongst the bidder and confirmation of sale, shall be finalised by Asset Sale Committee, but subject to the approval granted by this Court. v. It shall be specifically informed to the interested offerers who may deposit earnest money that they may be required to undertake inter se bidding even at the time when there is approval to be granted by this Court. vi. The amount of deposit as EMD shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.6.2011, the writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench, relevant portions of which reads as under :- "Subsequently, when the matter was taken up by the Division Bench on 23rd June, 2010, this Court while observed that there is nothing on record to satisfy that any action is taken under Section 13 (4) of the said Act and merely a notice under Section 13 (2) of the said Act has been challenged, learned counsel on behalf of the parties submitted that in view of intervention and the interim orders passed by this Court, the parties are trying to settle the dispute and number of immovable properties of Petrofils have been auction sold by the Liquidator. On their request, the case was adjourned to ensure settlement. Today when the matter was taken up, it is stated that the matter is still pending for settlement, but this Court is not inclined to grant time, as in the present case only a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is under challenge and this Court is not inclined to interfere with such notice, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is also a remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act if any measure is taken by the secured creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the petitioner, if need arises, to make appropriate application for modification/recalling of the orders passed by this Court. I.A. No.1 is disposed of accordingly." 11. The parties subsequently also withdrew the proceedings from DRAT pursuant to the proceedings recorded before the Supreme Court and amounts realised through sale of properties of Petrofils were also distributed pro-rata amongst the creditors. 12. The State Government has filed the review/recall application along with delay condonation application on 15.10.2013 for reviewing the judgment dated 22.6.2011 on the ground that land was acquired for public purpose by the State Government. The State Government had contributed to the cost of acquisition. Such land so acquired can be used only for public purpose for which the acquisition was made. If public purpose was either not possible to accomplished or stood exhausted, the lands could be used only for another public purpose that too with the previous sanction of the State Government. The State Government and the GIDC were not made parties to the writ petition and other proceedings. The land of the State Government was sold to private individuals that too for devel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Gujarat in whom the land had vested, the entire auction and sale confirmation proceedings were illegal and liable to be set aside. Therefore, no further sur-rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and respondent no.18 or rejoinder affidavit to affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.16 and 17 was required to be filed. All the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the Court may proceed to finally hear and decide the matter. Therefore, we have started final hearing of the matter with the consent of learned counsel for the parties as affidavits had been exchanged. 14. We have heard Mr. M. S. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bharat Jani, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 10, Mr. Pranav Desai, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7, Mr. B. H. Bhagat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9, Mr. K. I. Shah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12, Mr. C. Z. Shankhla, learned counsel for respondent No.13, Mr. K. K. Pujara, learned counsel for respondent No.14, Mr. Shramik Bhatt, learned counsel for M/s Singhi & Company for respondent No.15, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Hriday Buch for responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fils Cooperative Limited (original valuation report) and IDBI (revised valuation report). This order was passed by this Court in Civil Application for direction No.6528 of 2009 on 2.7.2009. Some property was sold in the auction sale which was required to be confirmed. However, the properties which remained unsold (the properties which are in dispute in this petition), the Court permitted for fixing a fresh reduced upset price by order dated 3.8.2009. Both these orders were passed in Civil Application for direction No.6528 of 2009. By another advertisement on 6.8.2009, second tender notice was issued but again no tender was submitted inspite of reduction in upset price. The Committee obtained approval of this Court on 14.12.2009 in Civil Application No.12197 of 2009 for further reducing the upset price and for issuance of fresh tender which was accepted and fresh tender notice was advertised on 7.1.2010 by further reducing the upset price. The inter-se bidding took place in which the highest bidders were the respondent Nos.16, 17 and 18 and Civil Applications No.3040 of 2010 and 3041 of 2010 were filed before this Court for confirmation of sale in favour of the highest bidders. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute vested in the Corporation free from all encumbrances. Learned counsel further urged that the land was acquired under Section 17 read with Section 17-A inserted by Gujarat Act No.20 of 1965. Under Section 17-A, the land could legally vest in the Corporation owned by the State Government for using such land for public purpose. The land in dispute did not vest in the State Government as under Section 16, neither the State Government nor the Collector took possession. The land in dispute vested in the Corporation as the land was acquired under Section 17, 17-A (Gujarat Act) for fulfilling the requirement of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation as provided in Section 30 of GID Act which had been enacted for securing the orderly establishment and organization of industries in industrial areas and industrial estates in the State of Gujarat. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the public purpose was for which the land was acquired was achieved by establishment of the Society for manufacturing certain petrochemicals and for developing a township for the employees and staff of the Society. The Society was a Joint Venture of the Government of India with we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dator nor the Asset Sale Committee constituted by this Court had committed any illegality or irregularity in disposal of the lands in question to the auction purchasers. Initially, the Asset Sale Committee in terms of the stipulation contained in order dated 12.12.2008, had sought to sell inter alia the leasehold rights over the lands in question on the basis of the highest of the two valuations given by the Govt. approved Valuers - one appointed by the Liquidator and the other one appointed by the IDBI. But the response from the public was zero. 17.4 Thereafter, after obtaining due approval from this Court on 2.7.2009, when the Asset Sale Committee sought to sell the leasehold rights of the lands in question on the basis of the average of the two valuations given by the aforesaid two Government approved valuers and issued public notice dated 6.8.2009, again there was no response. After obtaining due approval from this Court on 14.12.2009, when the Asset Sale Committee sought to sell the leasehold rights of the lands in question on the basis of the average of the two valuations minus 10% thereof, and issued public notice dated 7.1.2010, there was again no response whatsoever with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough the aforesaid parcel of land is a property acquired by Society through GIDC, yet even till date, the State Government has not questioned the decision of the Asset Sale Committee headed by the Liquidator to sell the said lands to M/s. Ganesh Infrastructure or the State Government was a necessary party. 18. Mr. P. K. Jani, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Parth Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.19 to 21 has urged that the challenge in the writ petition is to the notice under Section 13 of the Securitisation Act, 2002. The issue involved in the present writ petition is that the petitioner and the respondents who are Secured Creditors could not have agreed to sell the land wherein there is an interest of the State Government. He submitted that a detailed procedure is provided under Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 for winding up of a Cooperative Society. The petitioner and the respondents who are secured creditors could not have bypassed the procedure envisaged under the said Act with consent of each other resulting into serious prejudice to the interest of the State Government. 18.1 He further submitted that the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selected persons to get the land at very low price. 18.6 He further submitted that this Court had no occasion to go into the legality, validity and propriety of the auction proceedings as the parties before this Court did not object to the auction proceedings. This Court did not assign any reasons for confirmation of sale. At that stage, the State and the office of Collector were not parties to the proceedings at that time. 18.7 He further submitted that there was no intimation to the State or GIDC about auction proceedings. Prior approval of GIDC was not taken for auction proceedings. That the entire auction proceedings were conducted behind the back of the State and the GIDC. The auction purchasers have no right, title or any interest over the land as the rights of the Society in the land were incapable of being sold to anyone. He further submitted that the auction purchasers cannot be permitted to make use of the land for commercial activities. They do not have rights to develop the land, sub-plot it, sell it or part with the possession of entire or part of land to anyone. They cannot be allowed to carry out commercial activities of any nature. He, therefore, submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the property have been done in a fair and transparent manner. This Court has confirmed the sale of a property. It is stated that the land purchased by the respondent no.18 is situated at village Ranoli for industrial purpose allotted by GIDC to the Society. The answering respondent has stepped into the shoes of the Society so far as lease is concerned. It has clearly been stated that the respondent no.18 is going to utilize the land for industrial purpose only. The description of the property given in paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Collector was inaccurate. 19.3 In paragraph 7 of the rejoinder, it has been stated that the land purchased by the respondent no.18 in open public auction which has been confirmed by this Court regarding which a notification under Section 4 was issued on 2.9.1974 and notification under Section 6 was issued on 11.6.1976 of the LA Act and the land was acquired by consent award dated 13.7.1976. The respondent no.18 had purchased the leasehold right for the remaining period of 99 years of the land situated at village Ranoli forming part of Petrochemical park developed by GIDC and the respondent would be using the land for the same purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. With the permission of this Court, the answering respondent has dismantled the plant and obtained necessary no objection from various authorities to complete the formalities of transferring leasehold rights and when the lease document was about to be executed, the State Government filed the review petition which delayed the implementation of the Project by the answering respondent causing huge loss. 20. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Hriday Bhuch for respondent Nos.16 and 17 has submitted that Section 30 (1) and (2) of GIDC Act makes GIDC the owner of the acquired land. Vesting connotes ownership and Section 30 (2) gives no indication that there is a limited vesting of land in GIDC for the purpose of management and possession. The vesting provision must be given its fullest effect in absence of any hint in the statute that GIDC cannot become the owner of the land acquired by the State for GIDC. 20.1 He further submitted that the award amount was paid by GIDC and hence, GIDC has borne the entire cost of acquisition and the State is merely an acquiring agency and hence, State does not become the owner. 20.2 He further submitted that Section 30 (1) emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent was accepted as he was the highest bidder and the sale was confirmed. Similarly, bid of the respondent no.17 - Prestige Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was also highest and the sale was confirmed. In paragraph 11, it has been stated that No Objection has been issued by GIDC, GEB, Notified Area Authority, transfer charges had been paid and all dues of the aforesaid authority were paid by the answering respondent. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-reply, it has been stated that with regard to the land, a supplementary agreement was executed on 12.9.2011 between GIDC and the respondent no.16 accepting respondent no.16 to be the successor of the original licensee. 20.6 In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the affidavit-in-reply, it was stated by respondent no.16 that by letter dated 17.9.2012, the GIDC conveyed its no objection for the approval of land for development of the housing sector land for residential purpose subject to terms and conditions specified therein. 20.7 In paragraph 16, it was stated that on 25.3.2013, Vadodara Urban Development Authority communicated revised development permission for residential purpose and approved the same after receiving necessary development charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be used for establishment of the project for manufacturing of polyester filament yarn and the land would not be used for any other purpose without the permission of the lessor. In condition (r) of the lease deed, it was mentioned that in the event of liquidation of the lessee, the person in whom the title vests shall serve a notice on the lessor within one month from the date of vesting. 21.2 In paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-reply, it has been stated that the land in dispute situated at Naldhari industrial area of GIDC, Taluka Valia, Dist. Bharuch was acquired by GIDC by notification dated 24.11.1986 and consent award/regular award as per Section 11 of the LA Act was made on 8.3.1989 and 12.1.1990. In the notification as well as in the award, the public purpose was clearly mentioned that the land is acquired for creation of Valia Industrial Estate. M/s. Petrofils Cooperative Limited entered into a lease agreement for the period of 99 years with GIDC on 8.11.1989 and the entire land was allotted to Petrofils Cooperative Limited. In paragraph 22, it has been stated that if the leasehold rights of the land in dispute are transferred, then the supplementary agreement will hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment that the land in dispute was acquired for public purpose for the Society. The Petrofils Cooperative Limited was a joint venture of Government of India and the weavers society known as Petrofils Cooperative Limited for manufacture of polyester filament yarn. The Central Government was holding 84% shares. The argument of learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted that merely because the State Government had invested Rs. 1,000/- for acquiring the land for public purpose, would mean that the land belongs to the State Government or the acquired land has vested in the State Government. It only establishes that land acquisition was for a public purpose. 23. The Apex Court in Manubhai Jehtalal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (1980) 4 SCC 553 at page 555 in paragraph 4 is extracted as under :- "4. It is not correct to determine the validity of acquisition keeping in view the amount of contribution but the motivation for making the contribution would help in determining the bona fides of acquisition. Further in Malimabu case, contribution of Re.1 from the State revenue was held adequate to hold that acquisition was for public purpose with State fund. Therefore, the contributio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Collector under Section 11 (2) of the LA Act. The land in dispute never vested in the State nor the Collector or the State Government had taken possession from the farmers/land owners. 27. The land was acquired by the State Government under Section 30 and 31 of the GID Act and in furtherance of the object of the GID Act, the State Government entered into agreement with GIDC as provided in Section 32 of the GID Act. Section 32 of the GID Act is reproduced as under :- "(32) (1) For the furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may, upon such conditions as may be agreed upon between it and the Corporation, place at the disposal of the corporation any lands vested in the State Government. (2) After any such land has been developed by, or under the control and supervision of the Corporation, it shall be dealt with by the Corporation in accordance with the regulations made, and directions given by the State Government in this behalf. (3) If any land placed at the disposal of the Corporation under sub-section (1) is required at any time thereafter by the State Government, the Corporation shall replace it at the disposal of the State Government upon such terms and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the same for the Industrial Township. AND WHEREAS the Government having caused an inquiry to be made in conformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called "the said Act") and being satisfied as a result of such inquiry that the acquisition of the said land is needed for the aforesaid public purpose had decided to acquire the said land under the provisions of the said Act and contribute sum of rupees one thousand towards the cost of such acquisition and called upon the Corporation to enter into an agreement hereinafter contained with the Government. Now these presents witness that the Corporation doth here by bind itself to pay to the Government the cost of the acquisition of the said land excluding rupees one thousand that will be paid by the Government and such charges as may be incurred by the Government or by any of the officer of the Government in respect of the said acquisition at such time or times as the Collector of (hereinafter referred to as "the Collector") shall require on the amount of the said cost being certified by the Collector and doth agree that in the event of its making default in any such payment, it shall be lawful for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reto pursuant to a resolution of the Corporation dated Sd/- Asstt. Chief Executive (Land) In the presence of :- (1) Sd/- (2) Sd/- (3) SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED by Officer On Special Duty, Industries Commissioner's Office, Ahmedabad. Officer on Special Duty (LA), Industries Commissioner's Office, Ahmedabad. In the presence of (1) (2) SCHEDULE District Taluka Village S. No. Area of the land under acquisition H.A. Sq. Mt. Purpose for which the land is to be acquired. Baroda Baroda Undera 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 249 250 251 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266/1 266/2 267 275+ 276 + 0 - 59 - 69 0 - 31 - 36 0 - 29 - 34 1 - 23 - 43 0 - 62 - 73 0 - 58 - 68 0 - 51 - 60 0 - 46 - 54 0 - 25 - 29 0 - 24 - 28 0 - 54 - 63 0 - 52 - 61 0 - 48 - 56 1 - 79 - 07 0 - 64 - 75 + 0 - 02 - 02 Well's Kharaba 0 - 61 - 71 0 - 64 - 75 + 0 - 04 - 05 Road's Kharabo. 0 - 40 - 47 0 - 90 - 04 0 - 08 - 09 0 - 26 - 30 0 - 18 - 21 0 - 51 - 60 0 - 21 - 25 0 - 25 - 29 0 - 19 - 22 0 - 39 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l encumbrances including tenancy rights, if any, alleged to be held by the respondents." 30. As demonstrated earlier, it is established from the record that entire expenses of acquisition and payment of compensation under the consent award had been paid by the GIDC and the GIDC having taken possession directly from the farmers/land owners, the GIDC became the absolute owner of the land in dispute free from all encumbrances under Section 30 of the GID Act. 31. We may now consider the argument made on behalf of the State Government by the learned Additional Advocate General that since the land has been acquired by the State, it has vested in the State free from all encumbrances. It is necessary to reproduce Section 16 of the LA Act which reads as under :- "16. Power to take possession. When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances." 32. The Apex Court had the occasion to consider the scope of Section 16 of the LA Act and vesting of acquired land in the State Government after passing of the award in Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India and oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in every case. But here, in our opinion, since the land was lying fallow and there was no crop on it at the material time, the act of the Tehsildar in going on the spot and inspecting the land for the purpose of determining what part was waste and arable and should, therefore, be taken possession of and determining its extent, was sufficient to constitute taking of possession. It appears that the appellant was not present when this was done by the Tehsildar, but the presence of the owner or the occupant of the land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession. It is also not strictly necessary as a matter of legal requirement that notice should be given to the owner or the occupant of the land that possession would be taken at a particular time, though it may be desirable where possible, to give such notice before possession is taken by the authorities, as that would eliminate the possibility of any fraudulent or collusive transaction of taking of mere paper possession, without the occupant or the owner ever coming to know of it." (emphasis supplied) 15. In Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab (1996) 4 SCC 212, the Court negatived the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Andhra Pradesh (supra) and Nahar Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 1 SCC 434, this Court laid down the following principles : "(i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land. (ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession. (iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken. (iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 228 Kan. 469, 618 p. 2d 778, 783. See also Accrue Vest and specific typed of vested interest infra." 27. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, of the English Language unabridged, Volume III S to Z at page 2547 defines the word "vest" as follow: "vest" vest ...... To place or give into the possession or discretion of some person or authority (the regulation of the waterways .... to give to a person a legally fixed immediate right of present or future enjoyment of (as an estate) (a deed that vests a title estate in the grantee and a remainder in his children), (b) to grant endow, or clothe with a particular authority right or property ..... to put ( a person) in possession of land by the feudal ceremony of investiture ..... to become legally vested (normally) title to real property vests in the holder of a property executed deed.)" 28. "Vest"/"vested", therefore, may or may not include "transfer of possession" the meaning of which depends on the context in which it has been placed and the interpretation of various other related provisions. 29. What is deemed "vesting absolutely" is that "what is deemed to have acquired". In our view, there must be express words of utmo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7(1) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950 held that 'vesting' is a word of slippery import and has many meaning and the context controls the text and the purpose and scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of meaning. The court in Rajendra Kumar v. Kalyan (dead) by Lrs. (2000) 8 SCC 99 held as follows: "We do find some contentious substance in the contextual facts, since vesting shall have to be a "vesting" certain. "To vest, generally means to give a property in." (Per Brett, L.J. Coverdale v. Charlton. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 5th edn. Vol. VI.) Vesting in favour of the unborn person and in the contextual facts on the basis of a subsequent adoption after about 50 years without any authorization cannot however but be termed to be a contingent event. To "vest", cannot be termed to be an executor devise. Be it noted however, that "vested" does not necessarily and always mean "vest in possession" but includes "vest in interest" as well." 32. We are of the view that so far as the present case is concerned, the word "vesting" takes in every interest in the property including de jure possession and, not de facto but it is always open to a person to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases contemplated by Sections 16 and 17, the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any condition or ; limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration." 28. In Gulam Mustafa & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 448, in a similar situation, this Court held as under :- "Once the original acquisition is valid and title has vested in the Municipality, how it uses the excess land is no concern of the original owner and cannot be the basis for invalidating the acquisition. There is no principle of law by which a valid compulsory acquisition stands voided because long later the requiring Authority diverts it to a public purpose other than the one stated in the ....declaration." 29. Similarly, in State of Kerala & Anr. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., (1997) 5 SCC 432, this Court held as under: "It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e no misrepresentation or fraud, which would render the transactions as void and also that the property is purchased after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferee has the requisite power to transfer the said land, and finally that, the parties have acted in good faith, as is required under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (Vide: Asa Ram & Anr. v. Mst. Ram Kali & Anr., AIR 1958 SC 183; State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar Singh & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 401, Controller of Estate Duty, Lucknow v. Aloke Mitra, AIR 1981 SC 102; Hanumant Kumar Talesara v. Mohal Lal, AIR 1988 SC 299; and State of Punjab v. Surjit Kaur (Dead) through LRs., JT (2001) 10 SC 42)." 35. In another decision, the Apex Court in Gulam Mustafa and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1977 SC 448 had held that once the original acquisition is held to be valid and title vests in GIDC, how GIDC uses the land is of no concern of the Court as it has become the absolute owner of the acquired property free from all encumbrances. Therefore, no one can claim any right, title and interest in respect of the acquired land which has vested in GIDC. Once the land had vested in GIDC, it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d nor any amount towards cost of expenses for acquisition or compensation by consent award under Section 11 (2) of the LA Act was paid by the State Government. Further, the possession of the acquired land was taken by the GIDC directly from the farmers/land owners. Therefore, the entire acquired land vested in GIDC free from all encumbrances under Section 30 (2) of the GID Act. It is also relevant to point out over here that there was no necessity for the GIDC to enter into agreement with the State Government under Section 32 of the GID Act as GIDC was the absolute owner of the land in dispute but at that time, since the law was not clear to GIDC, they under a bonafide mistake entered into agreement with the State Government. The agreement cannot confer any right or title on the State Government. The land has been purchased by the respondent Nos.16 to 18 in a Court auction. The sale has been confirmed. The public purpose has not changed. Permission for construction of houses etc. had already been granted to respondent Nos.16 and 17 and no objection has been issued by GIDC and plan of respondent Nos.16 and 17 has been passed by Vadodara Urban Development Authority for construction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. The Registrar General of this Court had been directed to release the amount in favour of Liquidator, and the amount deposited pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the present case, after proper verification had been withdrawn by the Liquidator and paid to the Secured Creditors on pro-rata basis and no one has come up to contest this writ petition except the State Government which has no legal right or title over the land in dispute, in our considered opinion, the dispute having been set at rest, this petition is liable to be disposed of so that the respondent Nos.16 to 18 may use the property for the purpose for which they have purchased it in Court auction. 40. This writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the GIDC and other concerned authorities to expeditiously complete the formalities so that the object of Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 is achieved. The State Government and the Collector, Vadodara are directed not to create any hindrance in implementation of the Project by the auction purchasers. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Application also stands disposed of. Sd/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
