Photeset India vs Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant petition has been filed assailing demand notice dt.21/09/2007 (Ann.13) issued by Rajasthan Financial Corporation ("RFC") u/s 30 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ("Act, 1951"); and further prayed that respondents may be directed to execute lease deed in favour of petitioner for a part of land measuring 23X46 Mtr of plot No. 27-C, Malviya Industrial Area, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

As alleged in the petition, plot No. 27-C Malviya Industrial Area, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur was mortgaged by respondent-5 (Luman Engineers) with RFC; and since respondent-5 failed to make outstanding dues to RFC, tripartite agreement dt.05/08/88 (Ann.5) was executed between RFC, respondent-5 & petitioner - pursuant to terms & conditions whereof, a part of plot No. 27-C measuring 23X46 Mtr ("plot in question") was sold to petitioner vide document dt.02/08/1988 (Ann.4) on deferred payment.

Main thrust of submissions made by Counsel for petitioner is that once petitioner has made payment in full to RFC in regard to plot in question in terms of tripartite agreement dt. 05/08/88 (Ann.5), respondents are under legal obligation to execute lease deed of plot in question in favour of petitioner. Counsel further submits that loan account No. 6367 relating to part of plot sold to petitioner on deferred payment which had been cleared and as regard other loan account No. 6368, to which notice u/s 30 of Act, 1951 was served upon petitioner, matter is still sub judice for one time settlement as & when arrived at between the parties.

Counsel for respondent No. 6 (SIRDO) submits that merely because of plot being mortgaged with RFC, it would not hold RFC to be owner whereof in fact, plot in question was leased out by respondent No. 3 (RIICO) in favour of respondent No. 6 on certain terms & conditions; and as lessee, sub-lease to certain entrepreneurs was permissible in terms of lease deed executed between lessor (RIICO) & lessee (SIRDO); accordingly a part of plot in question was subleased to respondent No. 5 (Luman Engineers) who being sub-lessee as per lease deed executed between respondent-6 (SIRDO) & respondent-5 (Luman Engineers), property could not have been further transferred by creating third party rights; that being so, alleged tripartite agreement executed between RFC, petitioner & respondent-5 was void, inasmuch as since respondent-6 was not party to tripartite agreement, it is not binding upon him; in such circumstances, no right could be vested with RFC to dispose of property mortgaged by respondent-5 (Luman Engineers) for settlement of their loan account.

At the same time, Counsel for respondent- 5 while supporting submissions made by respondent-6 submits that tripartite agreement allegedly executed was void and being in contravention of conditions of lease deed, no right could be said to have conferred upon petitioner and even if amount is paid of plot in question to RFC still cannot be transferred in the name of petitioner.

Counsel for respondent (RIICO) submits that a part of large chunk of land was leased out to respondent-6 on specific terms & conditions as referred to in lease deed, itself and as lessee, was authorised to sub-lease but further transfer was never permissible under agreement executed between parties.

Correspondences have also been made at various levels between respondents (RIICO/RFC & SIRDO), in course whereof, matter has travelled all the way at different levels but no final solution came out.

In the opinion of this Court, the dispute about inter se rights between the parties raised herein involves disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in limited scope of judicial review U/Article 226 of the Constitution and their inter-se civil rights could be determined only after adjudication of their respective claims and counter claims thereto by competent civil court.

Before parting with the order, this Court called upon petitioner''s Counsel to seek instructions and inform as to whether his client is ready to accept total amount paid towards plot in question to RFC alongwith interest, Counsel on instructions, informs that his client is not interested to accept the said amount and wants possession of plot in question.

At last, Counsel for petitioner requests that interim order passed by this Court on 04/10/07 as regards plot in question be made operative which will enable the petitioner to approach Civil court so as to avoid third party interest being created; to which Counsel for respondent-5 (Luman Engineers) on instructions fairly undertakes not to create any third party interest in intervening period.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, this Court considers it appropriate that interim order dt.04/10/07 shall remain operative for a further period of four weeks; in the meantime, petitioner may move application seeking interim relief from Civil Court which will examine and adjudicate the dispute raised before it in accordance with law without being influenced of observations made (supra) by this Court. No costs.