ORDER A.S. Bopanna , J.—In OLR 106/2012, the Official Liquidator has prayed that the sale of the property relating to the company-in-liquidation be confirmed in favour of M/s. Godha Realtors (India) Private Ltd., and permit him to hand over the assets and the documents relating thereto. The application in CA No. 152/2012 is filed by a miniscule shareholder of the company-in-liquidation praying that the bid at Rs. 35,00,00,000/- be rejected and the properties of the company-in-liquidation be sold bit by bit so as to fetch maximum proceeds. 2. The application in CA No. 431/2012 is filed by India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., a company engaged, in the manufacture of sugar and situate about 30 kms. radial distance from the Company in liquidation. They have prayed to defer all further proceedings in Co. P. No. 66/1997 including the confirmation of sale made pursuant to the paper publication dated 20-12-2011, pending consideration and disposal of Writ Petition No. 60929/2012 filed by them. 3. Since the subject-matter in the OLR and the said two applications is ultimately relating to the confirmation or otherwise of the sale of assets of the company-in-liquidation, they are considered together and disposed of by this common order. 4. Sri K.S. Mahadevan, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator, Sri S.S. Naganand, learned senior counsel, Sri P.S. Manjunath, Sri Deepak, and Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respective parties were heard in support of the OLR and in opposition to the applications. On the other hand, Sri H.N. Shashidhar and Sri Rajesh Chanderkumar, learned counsel were heard in support of their respective applications while opposing the OLR. 5. M/s. Gangavathi Sugars Ltd. the company-in-liquidation was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2005 passed in Co. P. No. 66/1997. The said order has attained finality. Hence, towards realisation of the assets of the Company-in-liquidation consisting of 283 acres of the leasehold property allotted by the KIADB Buildings, Plant and machinery situate at Marali village, Marali Hobli, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District, the same was brought to sale by the sale notice dated 02.12.2011 published in 'Economic Times' all India Edition, Times of India' and 'Prajavani', Karnataka Editions as permitted by this Court in OLR No. 361 /2011. In response about 31 buyers had participated in inspection and the opening of the tender was on 01.02.2011. The highest bid offered was a sum of Rs. 28,00,00,000/-. In response about 31 buyers had participated in inspection and the opening of the tender was on 01.02.2011. The highest bid offered was a sum of Rs. 28,00,00,000/-. On inter sebidding as per the terms and conditions, the highest offer in a. sum of Rs. 34,90,00,000 was made by Godha Realtors (India) Private Limited. 6. The said proceedings was brought to the notice of this Court by the Official Liquidator through OLR No.65/2012 dated 05.02,2012. The tenderers were required to be present before this Court on 08.02.2012 when the said OLR was taken up for consideration. A perusal of the order sheet would indicate that the auction to enhance the bid amount was conducted in open Court and the said Godha Realtors (India) Private Ltd., who were the bidder No. 9 had raised its offer to Rs. 45,90,00,000/-, On providing further opportunity to one other bidder who was at Sl. No. 23, the Court considered the highest offer made by M/s. Godha Realtors (India) Private Ltd., by referring to and comparing with the valuation made in the valuation report which was available with this Court in a sealed cover. On considering that the offer made at present was higher than the valuation made by the independent valuer, this Court declared them as the successful bidder and the offer was accepted. They were further directed to deposit the balance amount within 30 days. The deposit of the amount is stated to have been made as per the details furnished in the OLR. It is in such circumstance, the present OLR is made indicating receipt of the sale consideration and seeking leave as noticed above. Insofar as the events indicated therein, it is sequential and all earlier proceedings have been before this Court. However, in view of the applications filed opposing the same, that aspect requires consideration. 7. In C.A. No. 152/2012, the applicant has referred to the earlier proceedings when the property in question had been sold to M/s. NSL Power Infratech in relation to recovery proceedings pursuant to orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal. At that point in time, the applicant had filed C.A. No. 945/2008 for recalling the order. The order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal were also questioned in W.P. No. 20575/2007 which was allowed on 12.02.2009. At that point in time, the applicant had filed C.A. No. 945/2008 for recalling the order. The order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal were also questioned in W.P. No. 20575/2007 which was allowed on 12.02.2009. The possession was also restored to the company-in-liquidation in view of the order in C.A. No. 452/2005. The effect of the same was that the auction conducted by the secured creditor outside the winding up proceedings had been set at naught in view of the proceedings before the Company Court and the process of realising the assets was to be made in the instant proceedings through the Official Liquidator, Hence, to the said extent, the previous history is not very relevant inasmuch as the subsequent sale proceedings have been conducted with appropriate leave from this Court, Hence, the only question is as to whether the applicant has made out sufficient grounds for grant of his prayer against confirmation of sale. 8. In that regard, the applicant contends that the land value in the vicinity is about Rs. 36.00.000/- per acre as per his inquiry and therefore, the value of the land belonging to the company-in-liquidation is more than 100 crores. It is therefore contended that the offer of Rs. 35,00,00.000/- should be rejected and since the land is situate in the heart, of Gangavathi, it is ideal for forming a township and as such, it should be sold in bits. The further grievance is that the KIADB has not disclosed the clear terms of the transfer and as such, appropriate offers have not been received. That apart it is contended that the valuation made by the official valuer is not made known in a transparent manner and it is therefore his case that the value is not properly determined. In that regard, the decision in the case of Union Bank of India v. Official Liquidator AIR 2000 SC 3642 ) is relied. In the instant case, the sequence noticed above would indicate that insofar as the valuation, the same was obtained from the valuer who was appointed through the process of this Court and the valuation report was submitted to this Court, As noticed from the order dated 08,02,2012, the learned Company judge presiding at that point had perused the valuation report. In the instant case, the sequence noticed above would indicate that insofar as the valuation, the same was obtained from the valuer who was appointed through the process of this Court and the valuation report was submitted to this Court, As noticed from the order dated 08,02,2012, the learned Company judge presiding at that point had perused the valuation report. The offer presently made was independent of the said valuation report and was more than what was contained therein. Neither the Official Liquidator nor the secured creditors more particularly the IFCI which is one of the secured creditor and also an equity investor holding 32,86% in equity has found anything wrong with the valuation. Further, the persons who responded to the offer were also not aggrieved that no reserve price was indicated or the valuation was not made known to them. In fact the proceedings of the Court indicates that was opened in the presence of the interested bidders who had raised their offer before this Court. Hence, the decision referred in a circumstance where the secured creditor has raised objection would not be of assistance to the applicant. 9. Be that as it may, the applicant himself has not put forth any other reliable valuation report by any independent approved valuers to indicate that the present valuation or the price accepted is not the correct one. Though a contention has been raised that the land could fetch about Rs. 36,00,000/- per acre, no material is placed on record nor has he brought any genuine buyer before this Court for a higher value than what is accented at present. Further, the applicant has been stating about the value as if absolute freehold property is being sold. 10. The initial grievance of the applicant that it is being sold only for Rs. 35,00,00,000/- in any event does, not survive inasmuch as it has been enhanced to Rs. 45.90,00.000/-, The secured creditor would certainly have preferred to get more value if it could fetch more since their outstandings in all is about Rs. 300 crores. But, when a transparent procedure of providing publicity is undertaken and the sale has been conducted and all concerned agree that it would not fetch more, the petitioner who holds two equity shares of Rs. 10/- each cannot put spokes without concrete basis. 11. 300 crores. But, when a transparent procedure of providing publicity is undertaken and the sale has been conducted and all concerned agree that it would not fetch more, the petitioner who holds two equity shares of Rs. 10/- each cannot put spokes without concrete basis. 11. The further contention that the lands should be sold bit by bit is also without basis and that too for a township. Firstly the land in question is a land allotted by KIADB for industrial purpose. Secondly it is held under lease-cum-sale agreement which is subject to terms and conditions where further amounts are to be paid to KIADB. The bidders in the auction being aware of these aspects have invested though all other terms would have to be worked out between them and KIADB. At this juncture, the Official Liquidator could not have been expected to engage in this exercise on the ground that the change of land use would have fetched a higher price. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected. 12. The applicant in CA No. 431 /2012 as noticed has nothing to do with debts of the company-in-liquidation nor is it interested in purchasing the assets. The applicant being another sugar factory in the vicinity is apprehending that the sale of the assets of the company-in-liquidation as a single unit can also result in the revival of the company-in-liquidation, which is also a sugar factory and therefore the business interest of the applicant would be affected. The. applicant contends that the paper publication dated 20.12.2011 made by the Official Liquidator and the intention of KIADB to confer benefit of the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 12,03,1973 on the successful bidder would result in re-establishment effecting the survival of the applicant company. The ground for such grievance is that the company-in-liquidation itself encountered problem due to lack of sufficient sugarcane in the area as evident from the Government Order which was the basis for allowing the company to go into liquidation. The requirement of Rs. 4.5 lakhs M.T. of sugarcane to meet the crushing capacity of 2500 TCD of the applicant factory is being barely achieved and that too it has to be met from the sugarcane growing area which are earmarked and attached to the respective factories as per the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The requirement of Rs. 4.5 lakhs M.T. of sugarcane to meet the crushing capacity of 2500 TCD of the applicant factory is being barely achieved and that too it has to be met from the sugarcane growing area which are earmarked and attached to the respective factories as per the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The applicant in that circumstance has suffered financial setback and is presently functioning on the rehabilitation approved by BIFR on 12.02.2002. If the company-in-liquidation is revived as sugar factory, the applicant would be affected as certain sugarcane growing area would be allotted to them and such sugarcane will not be available to the applicant and they would also suffer financial setback. The applicant has therefore filed the Writ Petition in No. 60929/2012 challenging the auctioning of the assets and also the transfer of lease to the successful bidder by KIADB. They are therefore seeking deferment of confirmation pending disposal of the writ petition. 13. Having considered the objections to the said application, at the outset, it is to be noticed that the instant application is by an industry carrying on similar business as that of the company-in-liquidation, Therefore, merely on the apprehension that if the purchaser revives the industry, if would affect the business interest of the applicant, the confirmation of sale cannot be deferred. The writ petition is only a device to seek for such relief as the sale of the assets of the company-in-liquidation is as per the procedure contemplated under the Companies Act. As the first step, on this Court passing the winding up order, the properties have vested with the Official Liquidator, Thereafter, at every stage, the procedure for sale of the property has been followed as indicated in the earlier part of this order while considering the other application. Huge amounts are due to the secured creditors as noticed above and they are also expending money for the security of the property. The successful bidder after weighing all the pros and cons has invested a sum of Rs. 45,90.00.000/- after inspecting the property on 'as is where is' basis. Any further delay would result in deterioration of plant and machinery and would lead to waste of the valuable assets. The successful bidder after weighing all the pros and cons has invested a sum of Rs. 45,90.00.000/- after inspecting the property on 'as is where is' basis. Any further delay would result in deterioration of plant and machinery and would lead to waste of the valuable assets. Further, the manner in which the successful bidder would put the property to use is in the realm of speculation as it is a matter which is 'entirely between them and KIADB, Even assuming that the successful bidder intends to revive the sugar industry, those are issues which would be regulated in terms of Sugarcane (Control) Order and the applicant can always explore their remedies therein, Certainly at this stage when the Official Liquidator is performing his statutory duty under the supervision of this Court, the applicant cannot seek deferment of confirmation of sale solely on the ground of pendency of the writ petition when there is no restraint imposed therein. 14. In the result, the following: ORDER (i) CA No. 152/2012 and CA No. 431/2012 stand dismissed. (ii) The prayers made in OLR No. 106/2012 is granted. The OLR is accordingly taken on record and disposed of. (iii) Accordingly, the sale of land measuring 283 acres in favour of M/s. Godha Realtors (India) Pvt. Ltd., 14, Sector 'C' Ramaiah Reddy Colony, Basavanagar, Marathalli, Bangalore as accepted by this Court on 08,02,2012 is confirmed. (iv) The Official Liquidator is permitted to handover possession of the property and the documents to the purchaser.