9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Mamlatdar Dahod respondent no. 4 herein, whereby the application made by the petitioner for cancellation of mutation entry no. 1552, dated 21st November, 2005, has been rejected. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 3 M/s. Alka Industries, had obtained financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,21,82,000/- from the petitioner Bank. As there was a default for the repayment of the amount due to the petitioner and as the respondent no. 3 owed arrears to the tune of Rs.1,57,34,594/- to the petitioner, the petitioner instituted Lavad Suits Nos. 499 of 1998 and 501 of 1998 and 580 of 2002, 581 of 2002 and 579 of 2002, before the Board of Nominees, Vadodara for the recovery of its dues. The Board of Nominees p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Upon request of the respondent no. 2, the Mamlatdar, Dahod, recorded the charge in favour of the respondent no. 2 and made mutation entry no. 1552 to this effect in the revenue record. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a secured creditor, in whose favour the land in question had been mortgaged by the respondent no. 3 prior in point of time, and who, in lieu of this mortgage, had provided financial assistance to the respondent no. 3 firm. The petitioner, therefore, raised objections on 3rd January, 2006, to the effect that no charge in favour of the Sales Tax authority could be registered and that no priority could be claimed by the said authority over the charge of the petitioner. 6. Upon the objections raised by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gment that the Division Bench has held that the unsecured claim of the State Government cannot have precedence over the secured debts of other persons, and to this extent the provisions of Section 137 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code have been held to be void. This judgment was brought to the notice of the respondent no. 4, at the time of hearing of the application, but it does not appear to have been taken note of, by the said authority. 10. In view of the ratio in the case of (M/s.) Surendrabhai Company Anr., v. State of Gujarat Ors.,(supra), order dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the respondent no. 4 cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the Mamlatdar, Delsar, is quashed and set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
