Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 140 (CAL)

Yogamaya Ghosh v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta

1993-03-24

AJOY NATH RAY

body1993
JUDGMENT Ajoy Nath Roy, J. 1. This is an application for stay made on behalf of certain squatters for restringing the Official Liquidator from removing them. 2. The application has been presented late and two orders for removal have successively taken effect. 3. In any event these squatters admit that they have no title by purchase to the land and seek to set up only a title by way of adverse possession. 4. They say that they came on the land sometime in 1974 and that they even took the liberty of constructing building between 1976 and 1981. 5. The only documents in support are payments of certain small amounts as local taxes, mostly dated in the nineties, with only two or three of 1981. There is nothing to show that the squatters came in as early as claimed, or set up any adverse claim to the company, as opposed to being mere permissive occupiers. 6. The company however went into liquidation in 1984. By that time the adverse possession of these occupants did not ripen into a completed title as even on their own showing, if the same is to accepted at face value only, 12 years had not elapsed from their first coming on to the land. 7. After the company went into liquidation the squatters were bound in law to deliver up possession to the Official Liquidator, and whether they did so in fact or not, in the eye of law the Official Liquidator is deemed to be in possession of company property. 8. Time for perfection title by adverse possession, therefore, ceased to run on and from 1984 when the liquidation order in regard to the company was finally passed, assuming that it had started to run at any time at all in the first place. 9. The application therefore shows no vestige of title or right to possession on the part of any of the applicants to the company's land in question. 10. These matters are to be disposed of in liquidation proceeding as these are questions that arise in the course of winding up. 11. I have no hesitation to hold that the present application should be summarily rejected which is hereby done. All parties and other concerned to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.