ABS Spinning Orissa Vs

Arindam Sinha, J

CMPAT No. 4 of 2002 & Misc. Nos.16 of 2011, 17 of 2011, I.A. Nos.7 of 2012, 13 of 2012, 14 of 2012, 15of 2012, 27 of 2011 and 1 of 2013.

Mr. Das, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and places order dated 15th November, 2021. Paragraph 6 from said order is extracted and reproduced below:-

“6. There is no dispute that petitioners’ have assailed said order of Assistant Settlement Officer, by an application to be dealt with by this Court under sub-section (2) in section 446 of Companies Act, 1956. As things stand, it appears that order dated 17th October, 2012 has not been founded on law. State will be heard in support of the order, if that is its instruction.”

Upon hearing Mr. Das, this Court observes, mutation is for purpose of the authority having, in its record, names of occupiers from whom tax is to be collected. Entries in such record are not proof of title. Petitioner has relied upon high authority regarding title conferred by Court auction and sale confirmed. As such, refusal by the authority to record its name will not impeach or cause any difficulty in petitioner’s title over the land. The authority will not be able to demand tax from petitioner in respect of its occupation of the land. In the premises, Court is not inclined to interfere as it has been ascertained that petitioner also earlier got clarification from Court regarding good title for purpose of it providing security of the land in getting credit facilities.

Mr. Panda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and prays for adjournment to consider his client’s position. State is reminded that adjudication was at this stage on 15th November, 2021. Hence, adjournment granted is peremptory.

There are several applications being Misc. Nos.16 of 2011, 17 of 2011, I.A. Nos.7 of 2012, 13 of 2012, 14 of 2012, 15 of 2012, 27 of 2011 and 1 of 2013, all of whom relate to claims that must be made to office of the Liquidator. Said office is represented. Applicants in the applications have not been able to demonstrate unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal action by the office. Applicants must pursue the applications in that office.

I.A. no.27 of 2011 is application by one Jogesh Ranjan Mishra. Mr. S.K.Baral, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant. He submits, a parcel of land was purchased by his client from the Collector by deed dated 28th April, 2005. On query from Court, Mr. Das submits, the parcel is within land of the company (in liquidation), since purchased by his client. He draws attention to lease dated 14th July, 1981 between State and Industrial Development Corporation of Odisha Limited (IDCOL), lessor’s covenant clause 6(i). Said clause is reproduced below:-

“The land shall be utilized for which it is sanctioned, and should not be sanctioned or transferred, or leased out to private persons, bodies and authorities disposed of. ”

By Misc. Case no.1 of 2013 petitioner has prayed for quashing of said order dated 17th October, 2012. Applicant’s claim, as purchaser of the parcel, is outside scope of the misc. case. Applicant and petitioner are left to find their remedy.

All the I.As treated as on day’s list and are disposed of.

List on 10th March,2022.

………………………