Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is stated by the petitioner that thereafter, the trust had established a self financing medical college in certain extent of land. Subsequently, the trust had sold away an extent of 42.70 Ares of land to one M/s.Sterling Computers Limited and its nominees under 19 different sale deeds from 02.03.1990 to 17.05.1990. After purchase of the property, M/s.Sterling Computers applied to the Government for re-classification of the lands from Agricultural Use Zone to Primary Residential Use Zone. The Government, after having considered the request made by M/s.Sterling Computers, by an order in G.O.(Ms.)No.742, dated 29.04.1991, re-classified the lands from Agricultural Use Zone to Primary 6 of 54 http://www.judis.nic.in Residential Use Zone. Subsequently, M/s.Sterling Computers had also obtained planning permission for developing the land. M/s.Sterling Computers, later on renamed as "Siva Industries and Holdings Limited". The said Siva Industries and Holdings Limited [hereinafter referred to as "the company"] had availed financial assistance from the 9th respondent - Canara Bank [hereinafter will be referred to as "the Bank"] by mortgaging its properties measuring an extent of 40.57 Acres, which were purchased from the trust. Thereafter, the company had committed default in repayment of loan availed by it from the bank and as such, at the instance of the bank, a proceedings was initiated under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter will be referred to as "the SARFAESI Act) and a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was also issued to the mortgagor company. Subsequently, the secured debt was assigned in favour of the 8th respondent [hereinafter referred to as "the assignor"] and certain extent of the mortgaged properties were sold under private negotiations. The petitioner had purchased an extent of 5 Acres of land from the 8th respondent under a private treaty which is in dispute now.

15. Apart from that, the then Government also compelled the trust to transfer 45 acres of land situate opposite to the college premises to M/s.Sterling Computers Limited and the trust was informed that by the Government that it would otherwise initiate land acquisition proceedings to acquired the lands. Therefore, yielding to the pressure and left with no other option the trust had executed sale deeds on different dates in the name of M/s.Sterling Computers Limited and its nominees conveying the lands measuring to an extent of 42.70 Acres between 02.03.1990 and 17.05.1990. It is further stated by the trust that there was no necessity for the trust to sell the lands and the sale deeds were executed out of compulsion and coercion. While the sale deeds were executed in different names, the entire sale consideration was paid only by M/s.Sterling Computers Limited. The particulars of various dates of execution of the sale deeds were also set out in the counter affidavit. The trust was forced to sell the 18 of 54 http://www.judis.nic.in lands knowing fully well that the medical college and assets of the trust were taken over. It is also admitted by the trust that the lands were sold in contravention of the permission granted under Section 37-B of the Act. As no declaration as contemplated under Section 20-A of the Act was issued by the authorized officer, the lands are not vested in the Government and that the trust continues to hold legal title to the lands in question.

20. Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned senior counsel for the 8th respondent would contend that after the purchase of the land, M/s.Sterling Computers Limited, got transferred the patta in their name. Thereafter, on the application filed by M/s.Sterling Computers Limited, the land was reclassified as primary residential use zone and planning permission was also granted to them for put up a multi- storeyed apartments. M/s.Sterling Computers Limited had also gifted the open reservation area to the local body which were accepted by the local body. All those acts of the Government authorities overwhelmingly go to show that the Government had no objection for the purchase of the land by M/s.Sterling Computers Limited. After classifying the land as primary residential use zone, 21 of 54 http://www.judis.nic.in the Character of Agricultural Land ceased to exist. Considering all those facts, the 9th respondent bank had accepted the property as security. Until then, there was no objection from the Government regarding the purchase in favour of M/s.Sterling Computers Limited. When the mortgagor company committed default in repayment, the 9th respondent bank had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the loan amount was assigned in favour of the 8th respondent which in turn had initiated further proceedings to realize the dues and sold a portion of the land in favour of the petitioner company and the remaining extent of 35 Acres of land are in the symbolic possession of the 8th respondent. Therefore, at this stage, it is not open to the respondent Government to contend that the sales were made in violation of the conditions of Section 37-B of the Land Reforms Act. According to the learned senior counsel, the action of the Government is hit by principles of promissory estoppel.

22. Mr.M.K.Kabir, the learned senior counsel for the 11th respondent trust while admitting the fact that an exemption was granted by the Government under Section 37-B of the Land Reforms Act would contend that the the sales in favour of M/s.Sterling Computers Limited were made by the 11th respondent under coercion and undue influence and they had not transfered the land on their own volition. Since exemption was granted in favour of the 11th respondent trust, the subsequent purchaser cannot ask for any exemption and the Government has got no power to grant exemption to the purchaser of the land. Merely because, the Government had acted in favour of M/s.Sterling Computers Limited, the same cannot validate a void sale made in favour of the company. Once the sale made 23 of 54 http://www.judis.nic.in by the 11th respondent trust has become void abinitio, the 8th respondent ought not to have accepted the property as security as M/s.Sterling Computers Limited had got no valid title to mortgage the lands in question. That apart, unless an order under Section 20A of the Land Reforms Act is passed taking over the land, the 11th respondent is the lawful owner of the property and if writ petition is allowed, the illegal acts of the other respondents will be validated.