ORDER Jayant Patel, J. 1. The short facts of the case appears to be that the land admeasuring 5000 sq. yards was allotted by the District Collector vide order dated 1-12-1978 against the consideration of Rs. 16,724/- to Babubhai Hargovandas Patel and others and sanad also came to be issued thereafter on 3-8-1999. Thereafter, partnership was formed and the said Ambica Grey Board Industries, had taken loan from the respondent Corporation and for execution of the mortgage, the permission was also granted by the District Collector vide order dated 16-5-1988. The only condition provided was that before making any change in the partnership firm, the prior permission was to be obtained and other condition of the order for allotment of the land vide order dated 1-12-1978 were continued. It appears that the said loanee Ambica Grey Board Industries was granted loan of the actual amount of Rs. 5,71,000/- by the respondent Corporation. Thereafter, there was default in paying the loan and outstanding amount mounted to Rs. 10,42,437/-. The Corporation in exercise of the power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) took over the possession on 29-5-1993 and held the public auction. At the said public auction, the petitioner offered the amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- being the price of the property and the said offer was accepted by the Corporation and the property was handed over to the petitioner on 21-6-1993. Thereafter, as the Sale Deed was to be executed, the application was made to the District Collector for grant of permission as the land was a new tenure land. The District Collector vide order dated 20-1-2004 at Annexure-D, declined the permission on the ground that the land is sold by a public auction without prior permission of the District Collector, therefore, the application is rejected. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by the present petition. 2. I have heard Mr. Soni for Mr. Amin for the petitioner, Mr. Chauhan for Mr. Munshaw for the Corporation and Mr. Raval, learned AGP for the District Collector. 3. It deserves to be recorded that at the time when the land was allotted to the original allottee, condition No, 5 provided that if the land is sold or transferred on account of non-redemption of the mortgage, 50% of the amount shall be payable to the State Government. Raval, learned AGP for the District Collector. 3. It deserves to be recorded that at the time when the land was allotted to the original allottee, condition No, 5 provided that if the land is sold or transferred on account of non-redemption of the mortgage, 50% of the amount shall be payable to the State Government. It is also provided that if the land is to be used for any purpose other than Industrial purpose, the permission of the State Government would be required. Therefore, the condition of allotment does not prohibit the transfer at all, but permits transfer upon payment of 50% amount of the property realised out of the sale of the property. It is in this background, the action of the District Collector is to be tested. 4. It is an admitted position that when the loan was granted by GSFC to the original allottee, the mortgage was executed under the permission of the District Collector. Therefore, there was a valid mortgage in favour of the GSFC. Section 29(1) and (2) of the Act reads as under: (1) Where any industrial concern, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof (or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation) or otherwise fails to comply with terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall have the (right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concern), as well as the (right to transfer by way of lease or sale) and realise the property pledged, mortgaged hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation. (2) Any transfer of property made by the Financial Corporation, in exercise of its powers under Sub-section (1), shall vest in the transferee all rights in or to the property transferred (as if the transfer) has been made by the owner of the property. 5. The aforesaid shows that if there is default on the part of the loanee to pay the amount as per the agreement, the Financial Corporation has power to take possession and realise the money by transfer. 5. The aforesaid shows that if there is default on the part of the loanee to pay the amount as per the agreement, the Financial Corporation has power to take possession and realise the money by transfer. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act provides that any transfer of the property made by the financial corporation in exercise of the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act shall be as if the transfer made by the owner of the property and there is a deeming fiction that the property shall vest in the transferee. When there is a sale in exercise of the statutory power under the Act by the Corporation, the property would automatically vest by virtue of the statutory provision in favour of the transferee. But as the Act further provides the effect of such transfer as if made by the owner of the property, the consequence so far as the collection of the premium is concerned, may arise even if the conditions of allotment are to be observed by making room for enforcement of the law made by the Parliament under Section 29(2) of the Act. Once the mortgage has been created under the permitting of the District Collector and the condition of the allotment also provides for premising sale for realisation of the security interest by way of mortgage, and when by express provision of Section 29(1) and (2) such transfer is made permissible by the Corporation for realisation of the outstanding amount, it is not open to the District Collector to decline the application on the ground that prior permission of the District Collector was not obtained. Be it noted that it is not a voluntary action by the owner of the property for sale of the property, but is a case where the sale is effected in exercise of the statutory power by a financial corporation. It is by now well settled that the case of distress sale as such cannot be equated with the voluntary sale. 6. In the present case, there are express powers by virtue of statute with the financial corporation to sell the property and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act further provides the vesting of the property in favour of the transferee. 6. In the present case, there are express powers by virtue of statute with the financial corporation to sell the property and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act further provides the vesting of the property in favour of the transferee. Therefore, when there is deeming fiction by statute, it is not open to the Collector to decline the application for execution of the Sale Deed on a mere ground that the prior permission is not obtained. 7. Further, as observed earlier, it is not a case where the condition of allotment had been provided for such sale for realisation of the security interest of the mortgagee, but it does provide that the property may be sold for realisation of the security interest of the mortgagee. The only condition is that 50% profit will be required to be paid to the State Government. It is not on record as to whether such transfer fee is to be paid by the transferee or by the Corporation. Therefore, so far as the bearing of such liability to pay the transfer fee the concerned, the same would be governed by the terms and conditions of the sale. About the quantum of the transfer fee, it will be for the GSFC and the applicant to produce the relevant record about the proportionate valuation of the land (minus construction) which has been realised out of the sale undertaken by GSFC. After arriving at such figure and after deduction of the cost, which was paid by the original allottee, the remaining amount could be termed as profit over which 50% shall be payable to the Government for grant of permission for transfer. Therefore, the Collector while considering the aspects of grant of permission may provide for putting condition of payment of such 50% amount of the difference of the price realised of the land (excluding the cost and the price realised of the construction) and may grant permission for effecting the transfer so as to permit GSFC to execute the Sale Deed in favour of petitioner herein. 8. 8. As the matter is not considered by the District Collector in light of the aforesaid, and the application is rejected on a mere ground that the prior permission was not obtained before sale of the property by GSFC, the decision of the District Collector cannot sustain in the eye of law and it will be required for the District Collector to examine the matters once again in light of the above observations made by this Court in the present judgment and the appropriate decision will be required to be taken by him. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has declared before the Court and has made statement before the bar that there the suit is disposed of and there is no impediment or prohibitory order of any Civil Court for consideration of the application for transfer or otherwise. 10. Hence, the impugned order passed by the District Collector dated 20-1-2004 (Annexure-D) is quashed and set aside with the direction that he shall consider the application of the petitioner afresh and shall examine the matter in light of the observations made by this Court in the present judgment and shall pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the GSFC. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the order of this Court. 11. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.