Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 109 (GAU)

Mantri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam

2015-02-03

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
Judgment Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional senior Government Advocate, Assam. The change in the name of the petitioner Company was duly brought to the notice of this Court and by order dated 28.04.2010 passed in M.C. No. 1065/2010 the substitution, as prayed for was allowed. 2. Mantri Tea Companies Private Limited is the erstwhile Vijayshree Industries Pvt. Limited. This writ petition has put to challenge the demand notice dated 10.01.2007 (Annexure-H) issued by the Circle Officer, Patherkandi, District Karimganj, herein respondent No. 3, as well as the order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure-K) issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj allowing mutation of the petitioner's name, however, subject to deposit of current and arrear land revenue which was due from a company called the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. 3. The facts on which the petitioner rests his case that in respect of sale of assets and properties of Pathini Tea Estate which belonged to the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd., the Official Liquidator appointed by the Calcutta High Court had issued the sale notice dated 19.07.2005 on " as is where is and whatever there is basis". In pursuance of the said sale notice the petitioner submitted application before the Calcutta High Court being interested to buy the same. By order of 22.08.2007 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.A. No. 413/2006 and related cases, the sate was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Direction was made for payment of Rs. 2, 20,000/- by way of security expenses incurred by the Official Liquidator for safeguarding the assets and properties of the company in question. An observation was also made to the effect that the petitioner would be entitled to make appropriate application before the concerned authority for transfer/renewal/grant of fresh lease in its favour in accordance with law. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 1.55 crores. 4. The handing over and taking over of possession of Pathini Tea Estate took place on 29.08.2006. The minutes of the said handing over by the Official Liquidator contains the following remarks:-- "During the course of handing over possession of assets, huge number of ex- workmen and creditors were present at spot and claiming their dues. 1.55 crores. 4. The handing over and taking over of possession of Pathini Tea Estate took place on 29.08.2006. The minutes of the said handing over by the Official Liquidator contains the following remarks:-- "During the course of handing over possession of assets, huge number of ex- workmen and creditors were present at spot and claiming their dues. In this context, it is informed that all the pre-liquidation claim will be invited by newspaper publication and settled by the Official Liquidator in accordance with law." 5. Pursuant to the handing over and taking over, the petitioner had made application before the respondent No. 2 praying for supplying the certified copies of 'Jamabandi' and land Pattas in respect of Pathini Tea Estate and for transferring the same to the name of the petitioner. This application before the respondent No. 2 was made on 04.09.2006. No response having been received, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Calcutta High Court and by order dated 18.12.2006 the Calcutta High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Karimganj district and the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department to consider the recording of the name of the petitioner in the record of rights for the area covered by Pathini Tea Estate. 6. On the strength of the order passed by the Calcutta High Court on 18.12.2006 the petitioner once again approached the District Administration by making a fresh application on 21.12.2006. The respondent No. 2 while considering the said application directed the petitioner to deposit Registration Fees in respect of the land in question and also to pay up the arrear land revenue up to 1413BS amounting to Rs. 29,85,687/-. By the same order the Circle Officer Patharkandi was asked to collect the Registration Fees amounting to Rs. 8850/-. 7. In pursuance of the direction contained in the letter dated 10.01.2007 of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner made the required deposit covering the Registration Fees and the same was duly acknowledged by the Circle Officer, Patharkandi. A Demand Notice of like date i.e. 10.01.2007 was also served upon the petitioner with the direction that the arrear land revenue quantified at a grand total of Rs. 29,85,715.54/- be cleared within a period of 12 days from receipt of the demand. At this stage the petitioner points out that the said Demand Notice was not addressed to anyone in particular. 8. 29,85,715.54/- be cleared within a period of 12 days from receipt of the demand. At this stage the petitioner points out that the said Demand Notice was not addressed to anyone in particular. 8. The impugned order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure-K) came to be issued by the respondent No. 2 stating in un-equivocal terms that the mutation would be allowed subject to payment/clearance of both the arrear and current land revenue due from Pathini Tea Estate. The said order of 17.01.2007 is now being tested in the present writ petition. 9. This Court while issuing notice, by order dated 31.01.2007 had stayed/suspended the operation of the aforesaid Demand Notice dated 10.01.2007 (Annexure-H) as well as the order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure-K). While granting the interim protection, this Court took into account that the petitioner would deposit the current land revenue amounting to Rs. 2,52,761/- and on such payment the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would initiate steps for mutation of Pathini Tea Estate in favour of the petitioner. 10. Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order at Annexure-H and Annexure-K, as afore stated particularly on the grounds that the arrear of the land revenue being the liability of the earlier occupiers, as such, the demand upon the petitioner is wholly un-sustainable, save and except any demand after 29.08.2006 on which date me petitioner came to occupy the Pathini Tea Estate. The second ground urged is that there was no stipulation in the sale notice of handing over and taking over of possession as well as in the minutes of possession that the auction purchaser would be required to clear any pre-liquidation liabilities and/or any arrears of land revenue. Further, that as the minutes of handing over and taking over of possession (Annexure-B) categorically indicated that pre-liquidation claims would be invited by newspaper publication and would be settled by the Official Liquidator in accordance with law, as such recovery, if any, can only be made from the Official Liquidator and not from the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel, also contended that under no circumstances any demand for arrears of land revenue can be made or imposed upon the petitioner in view of Section 530(1)(a)read with Section 529(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel, also contended that under no circumstances any demand for arrears of land revenue can be made or imposed upon the petitioner in view of Section 530(1)(a)read with Section 529(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Also, that the petitioner not being a defaulter in terms of Section 67 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886, as such, the land revenue dues pertaining to the period prior to 29.08.2006 cannot be saddled upon the petitioner. That under the circumstances the District Administration, at best, can only proceed against the earlier occupier for any default in the payment of the land revenue and cannot proceed against the petitioner. 11. On the broad grounds of challenge, as indicated above the petitioner prays for appropriate relief and to that end also places reliance upon the decision in Ai Champdany Industries Ltd. v. Official Liquidator & Anr. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 486 . 12. On the other hand, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, strenuously rebuts the submission and grounds urged by the petitioner. To that effect, Mr. Talukdar has invited this Court to the stand of the respondents highlighted in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. The primary grounds of challenge, amongst others, is that the entire burden of clearing the outstanding land revenue squarely falls upon the petitioner as the petitioner was aware of the liabilities of Pathini Tea Estate and the petitioner now cannot wish away the same on the doctrine of Caveat emptor. 13. Responding to the stand of the respondent Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the decision in Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. v. Mandal Revenue Officer & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 714 as well as in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Aafloat Textiles India Private Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2009) 11 SCC 18 , contends that the doctrine of Caveat emptor is wholly in-applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. Upon going through the records and the provisions of law and case laws cited by Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds great force on the grounds urged by the petitioner. 14. Upon going through the records and the provisions of law and case laws cited by Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds great force on the grounds urged by the petitioner. This Court also finds that the facts of the present case is similar to the facts appearing in the case of Ai Champdany Industries Ltd. v. Official Liquidator & Anr. (supra), not to speak of the scope and ambit as laid down under Section 530(1)(a) and Section 529(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 15. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for and to that extent the Demand Notice dated 10.01.2007 (Annexure-H) and the subsequent order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure-K) warrants interference of this Court and the same is being done by setting aside/quashing the said orders at Annexure-H and Annexure-K. The respondent No. 2 is also directed that since the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 2,52,761/- by way of current land revenue for 1413 BS, the excess amount paid by the petitioner, if any, be adjusted against any current land revenue payments that would be due from the petitioner. 16. The State respondents are also directed to proceed for mutation in the present name of the petitioner i.e. Mantri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with law. Resultantly this writ petition is allowed, however, without any order as to costs. Petition Allowed.