AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amitava Lala, J.—Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P. is not available on record and a copy of the same has been produced by learned Counsel for the petitioner be kept with the record.
The recovery proceeding has been started at the behest of P.I.C.U.P. (The Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd.) because according to the petitioner the land which has been shown in this writ petition is their land and it has no connection with either Uma Agrawal or B.B. Agrawal who are claiming to be owners of the land. The P.I.C.U.P. has relied upon only a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant on 29.5.1997 and granted loan without verifying the title of the plot.
Sri A.B. Saran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended before this Court that u/s 58(f) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the title deeds are required to be deposited for creation of any mortgage. Section 58(f) is quoted hereunder:
58 (f). Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.--Where a person in any of the following towns, namely, the towns of Calcutta, Madras, (and Bombay) and in any other town which the (State Government concerned) may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf, delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property, with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.
On the other hand Mr. Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for P.I.C.U.P. has contended that the land has admittedly acquired by the State, therefore, the petitioner, at this stage, can claim for compensation u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, the matter can be remanded back.
Mr. Saran has joined the issue and contended that whether he will go before the Collector or before the civil court is immaterial for P.I.C.U.P. because P.I.C.U.P. has no role to play in respect of claim of the petitioner.
According to us, we cannot adjudicate the title of the properties or compensation but within the scope of writ jurisdiction we can clearly hold and say that no recovery proceeding can be initiated at the behest of P.I.C.U.P. vide its letter dated 28.7.2005. Hence, the recovery proceeding is quashed.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.
It is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law or any body called upon to proceed with the same in accordance with law.
Ashok Srivastava, J.
I agree.