AKIL KURESHI, J. - (1.) The petitioner No. 1-the Indequip Engineering Ltd. was initially the sole petitioner which had filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling, Ahmedabad on 1-4-1991 as confirmed by an order dated 27-4-1992 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 113 of 1991. It appears that during the pendency of the petition in certain civil suits filed by the respondent No. 3-Bank of India, order came to be passed by the Civil Court appointing the Receiver to dispose of the properties of the petitioner No. 1-Company at the instance of the respondent No. 3-Bank. The application being Civil Application No. 8691 of 2004 came to be filed by the Receiver seeking to be joined as petitioner No. 2 in the present petition. In the Civil Application, it was stated that ends of justice would be served if he is joined as co-petitioner as it is his duty to ensure that the properties are disposed of as expeditiously as possible. On 17th February, 2005 while disposing of this application being Civil Application No. 8691 of 2004, learned single Judge of this Court allowed the applicant therein to be joined as petitioner No. 2 in the main petition. While allowing the application, the Court however, observed that the application is allowed without considering the rights of the parties and without considering the fact as to who is in possession of the land in question. The petitioner No. 2 as a Receiver appointed by the Court to dispose of the properties of the petitioner No. 1-Company, is thus joined in the present petition in the above-mentioned circumstances.
(2.) On 17-8-2005, when this petition was taken up for final hearing, the learned Advocate Ms. K. J. Brahmbhatt appearing for petitioner No. 1 stated before the Court that she has no instructions on the basis of which she could make her submissions in the present matter on behalf of the petitioner No. 1. I had therefore, heard other learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. "At this stage, it may be noted that the respondent No. 3-Bank of India claims to have loaned substantial amount of money to the petitioner No. 1-Company and as security for such loans, the respondent No. 3-Bank has taken in mortgage the immovable properties belonging to the petitioner No. 1-Company which includes certain urban lands which are subject-matter of the present litigation. It may also be noted at this stage that respondent No. 3-Bank had challenged an order dated 12-4-1991 passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad with respect to the very same lands for which order under Sec. 8(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was passed by the Competent Authority. Appeal No. 98 of 1991 filed by the respondent No. 3-Bank before the Urban Land Tribunal came to be rejected by an order dated 28th February, 1992. A copy of this order dated 28th February, 1992 not being on record has been tendered by learned A.G.P. Shri P. R. Abichandani and the same being undisputed has been taken on record. From perusal of this order dated 28th February, 1992 passed by Urban Land Tribunal, it can be seen that the Appeal of the respondent No. 3-Bank against the order dated 12-4-1991 passed by the Competent Authority (under Sec. 8(1) of the said Act) came to be rejected on the ground that the Bank claimed interest in the disputed land by virtue of the mortgage-deed executed on 5-7-1976 and 26-7-1985, and therefore, on the date of the commencement of the said Act, i.e. on 17-2-1976, the Bank had no interest in the land in question. It was observed that the Bank acquired interest in the land only pursuant to mortgage-deed. The Tribunal relying on certain decisions of the Court observed that a person who had no interest whatsoever in the land on 17-2-1976 i.e. the date of commencement of the said Act, cannot participate in the proceedings under the Act nor does it have a right to be heard. It was, therefore, held that the Bank having no title in the land on 17-2-1976, it cannot participate in the proceedings. So observing, the Tribunal was pleased to reject the Appeal filed by the respondent No. 3-Bank. It is not in dispute that against the said order dated 28-2-1992 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal, respondent No. 3-Bank has not filed any further proceedings. It is also not in dispute that respondent No. 3-Bank has not challenged in any other manner the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Urban Land Tribunal which are impugned in the present petition." "In this complex nature of factual background and conflicting rival interests, it was necessary at the outset to define with clarity the locus of each party and the stand that either of the petitioners or the supporting respondents could adopt before this Court. As noted earlier, the petitioner No. 1 has virtually abandoned the litigation. The respondent No. 3-Bank which claims vital interest in the property in question is not before this Court as a petitioner. The petitioner No. 2 who is appointed as Receiver is joined as party at his request by an order dated 17th February, 2005 where this Court has guardedly stated that the application is allowed without considering the rights of the parties and without considering the fact as to who is in possession of the land in question. The petitioner No. 2 cannot take place of respondent No. 3-Bank. The Receiver appointed by the Court cannot be confused as representing the interest of the Bank in the same manner as the Bank itself could. The petitioner No. 2 at best can derive interest and upto the extent that petitioner No. 1 can do so before this Court. Ordinarily, when the petitioner No. 1 has abandoned the litigation and has shown no active interest, it would have been open for this Court to drop the entire proceedings without any further discussion. Substantial amount of money loaned by respondent No. 3-Bank which was sought to be secured through the mortgage of the property in question is at stake. The respondent No. 6-Union espouses the cause of the workmen earlier employed by the petitioner No. 1-Company who have been left without salaries and without payment of other dues and are banking on this litigation to salvage at-least a portion of their claim against the petitioner No. 1-Company. In that view of the matter, I do not find it appropriate to close the proceedings without adjudication of the issues arising therein simply because petitioner No. 1-Company on account of subsequent development has lost interest in the litigation." "The conclusion of the above discussion is that having heard the learned Advocate appearing for different parties, it is necessary for this Court to focus on only those contentions which the petitioner No. 1-Company could have raised in the present petition ignoring and indicating those which only respondent No. 3-Bank had it been a challenger, could have but cannot, under the present circumstances, be permitted to raise."
(3.) With this clarity and background in mind, I would like to proceed further with recording of the rival contentions and dealing with the same as found appropriate. Before that however, it would be necessary to record few facts which would permit me to have a better view of the contentions raised. Dated 22-8-2005 : (This judgment was dictated in part on 18-8-2005. Thereafter, for want of time, the matter was posted 24-8-2005 for dictating judgment further. Today having found some time on hand, after indicating to all the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and with their consent, I have taken up the petition for further dictation of the judgment. It may be noted that though Mrs. Sangeeta M. Pahwa has filed sick note today, Ms. Vinita Vinayak is present for her while this order is being dictated.);