JUDGMENT : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. The Official Liquidator has filed this report, wherein, he has prayed for the following relief’s: "(A) During pending admissions hearing and final disposal of this report, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.(6.1), (6.2) & (6.3) to maintain status quo qua the right, title, interest over the laid in question and not make any construction/alternation etc., till disposal of this report and without permission of this Hon'ble Court. (AA) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct that the status quo be maintained in request to revenue entries in the revenue records of the Land in question until further order. (B) After hearing all concerned, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that revenue entries made by City Survey Superintendent on 24.02.2010 qua land bearing City Survey No.1160/B/C/D/E/F/G, Nr. Ramkrishna Mills, Gomtipur, Ahmedabad is null and void, without authority, de hors the law and therefore such illegal action may be pleased to quashed and set aside. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the concerned Government authority to restore the name of the company in liquidation qua land bearing City Survey No.1160/B/C/D/E/F/G, Nr. Ramkrishna Mills, Gomtipur, Ahmedabad in revenue records with all consequential and incidental order." 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. J.S. Yadav for the applicant Official Liquidator, learned AGP Mrs. V.S. Pathak for respondent No.7, learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada for respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr. Nangesh Sood for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. Sharif H. Shaikh for respondents No.6.1 to 6.3. 3. Learned advocate Mr. J.S. Yadav for the Official Liquidator submitted that this Court has passed an order on 25.04.1988 in Company Petition No.57 of 1987, whereby, Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as Liquidator of the said company. 4. The Official Liquidator in pursuance to the aforesaid order had taken over the possession of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation and thereafter sold the said assets and properties with the permission of this Court. The amount realised from the sale of the assets were also disbursed with the permission of this Court. 4. The Official Liquidator in pursuance to the aforesaid order had taken over the possession of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation and thereafter sold the said assets and properties with the permission of this Court. The amount realised from the sale of the assets were also disbursed with the permission of this Court. Thereafter Textile Labour Association preferred Company Application No.389 of 2011 and when the copy of the said application was served, the Official Liquidator came to know that some piece of land have been occupied by the erstwhile employees of the company in liquidation. In the said application, the Textile Labour Association prayed that the Official Liquidator be directed to dispose of the land with chawl on as is where is whatever there is basis. This Court passed an order on 15.09.2011 in the said application, whereby, the Official Liquidator was directed to initiate search from the relevant records regarding details of the land of the company in liquidation and thereafter engaged qualified professional to conduct the title search of the company in liquidation. The Official Liquidator therefore wrote a letter dated 01.09.2011 to IFCI being Chairman of the assets sale committee, requesting them to provide documents of the land in question so as to enable the Official Liquidator to appoint advocate for the title search of the said land. IFCI in turn requested for details of the land. However, in absence of the details, the same could not be provided to IFCI. Thereafter, the Official Liquidator collected certain details from the revenue record and the property card of the land in question from the concerned Government authority. In the meantime, the Official Liquidator received notice from the concerned Civil Court in connection with Civil Suit No.2610 of 2012 and 2611 of 2012, 399 of 2013, 416 to 418 of 2013 and 520 to 522 of 2013 filed by trustees of Hasanshaid's Masjid and Bai Jiya Kabrastan, so called owner of the land of the company in liquidation as well as tenants/occupants of chawl. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Yadav pointed out that aforesaid civil proceedings are filed without obtaining leave of this Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act of 1956. Thereafter, on the basis of certain documents provided by so called tenants, the Official Liquidator has appointed solicitor for investigating the title of the property in question. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Yadav pointed out that aforesaid civil proceedings are filed without obtaining leave of this Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act of 1956. Thereafter, on the basis of certain documents provided by so called tenants, the Official Liquidator has appointed solicitor for investigating the title of the property in question. The said solicitor submitted investigation report situated at land bearing City Survey No.1160/B/C/D/E/F/G, Municipal Survey No.1081/4, near Ramkrishna Mills, Gomtipur, Ahmedabad. It is pointed out that after the receipt of the said report, the Official Liquidator convened the meeting of the sale committee on 15.05.2013 to discuss and decide the further course of action on investigation report of title received from the concerned solicitor. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav thereafter contended that from the search report, it is revealed that the erstwhile company, now in liquidation, had acquired land in question by way of deed of assignment dated 27.07.1948 from Kantilal C. Munshaw. Lease deed which is earlier executed on 13.11.1925 for 51 years has expired and on the expiry of period of said lease deed, name of the company in liquidation was deleted from city survey records on 24.04.2010 i.e. after order of winding up was passed by this Court and without permission of this Court and names of Iftyaz Shermahommad Bashir Hussain, Nazir Hussain G. Malek and Shabirbhai S. Shaikh as administrators of Hasanpir Dargah were recorded in the revenue records. Thus, the sale committee decided that the Official Liquidator will file appropriate report before this Court. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav thereafter contended that the Official Liquidator wrote a letter dated 01.10.2013 to Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, requesting them to furnish the details and enquire that on what basis the Deputy Collector has deleted the name of the company in liquidation from the revenue records. Similar letter was written to City Survey Superintendent. It was informed by the concerned Revenue Officer that on the basis of the application received from I.N.Shaikh, Administrators of Hasanpir Dargah, they have removed the name of company in liquidation as lessee from the revenue records of the land in question. Thus, learned advocate Mr. Similar letter was written to City Survey Superintendent. It was informed by the concerned Revenue Officer that on the basis of the application received from I.N.Shaikh, Administrators of Hasanpir Dargah, they have removed the name of company in liquidation as lessee from the revenue records of the land in question. Thus, learned advocate Mr. Yadav submitted that the concerned revenue authority without informing to the Official Liquidator and without taking permission of this Court, deleted the name of the company in liquidation only on the basis of the application given by the concerned person and therefore this Court may declare that the said Revenue entries made by City Survey Superintendent on 24.02.2010 qua the land in question be declared as null and void without authority and de hors the law and therefore the same may be quashed and set aside and thereby direct the concerned revenue authority to restore the name of the company in liquidation qua the aforesaid land in question. 7. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. Sharif H. Shaikh appearing for the respondents No.6.1 to 6.3 submitted that said respondents are the trustees of Hasanshaid's Masjid and Bai Jiya Kabrastan, Ahmedabad, the Trust registered with Gujarat Waqf Board. The properties bearing City Survey No.1160/B/C/D/E/F/G is the trust properties which were given on lease by erstwhile administrator Mr. Saiyed Hussain Saiyed Ali of the said trust for a period of 51 years at the rate of yearly rent of Rs.110/to Chhaganlal Aditram on the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed dated 13.11.1925. He has further contended that by way of said lease deed, the lessee was permitted to carry out the construction and also permitted to let and sublet the leased property to the third parties. However, after completion of lease period of 51 years, lessee, the person whosoever in possession would handover the possession of the leased property in original position to the Trust. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh thereafter contended that Mr. Chhaganlal Aditram constructed five rooms on the said leased properties and the said rooms were given separate numbers such as city survey No.110/B/C/D/E/F/G and thereafter said Mr. Chhaganlal Aditram assigned the leased property to one Patel Tulsi Narsibhai by a registered deed dated 25.03.1941. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh thereafter contended that Mr. Chhaganlal Aditram constructed five rooms on the said leased properties and the said rooms were given separate numbers such as city survey No.110/B/C/D/E/F/G and thereafter said Mr. Chhaganlal Aditram assigned the leased property to one Patel Tulsi Narsibhai by a registered deed dated 25.03.1941. Thereafter, Patel Tulsi Narsibhai and administrator of Babubhai Tulsidas conveyed the said property to Kantilal Chimanlal Munshaw by a registered deed dated 24.03.1947 subject to the terms and conditions of the original lease deed dated 13.11.1925. At this stage learned advocate Mr. Shaikh submitted that Kantilal Chimanlal Munshaw executed a deed of assignment dated 11.07.1947 to Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. (company in liquidation) subject to the terms and conditions of the original lease deed and accordingly the entries were made in the city survey record. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh would contend that the period of lease has expired on 12.11.1976 and therefore as per the terms of the original lease deed and subsequent assignment, the last occupier of Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. ought to have handed over the possession of the said leased land to the Trust and therefore notice dated 31.08.1982 was given to the said company demanding the arrears and possession of the lease land. It is further contended that company in liquidation negotiated with the erstwhile trustees of the aforesaid trust and handed over the possession of the leased properties to the trust somewhere in the year 1983. At this stage, it is contended that there was change in the trustees and the present respondents No.6.1 to 6.3 became the trustees of the said Trust in the year 2009 and therefore they inquired about the Trust properties and at that time, they came to know that name of Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. has not been deleted from the city survey records. Therefore, they passed resolution on 20.11.2009 and decided to give an application to city survey office for the purpose of deleting the name of the aforesaid company. It is submitted that the concerned revenue authority after following due procedure, deleted name of the said company from the record. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh thereafter submitted that illegal occupants had filed Civil Suit No.288 of 2010 before City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for permanent injunction against respondents No.6.1 to 6.3 herein, wherein, the Official Liquidator was party defendant. It is submitted that the concerned revenue authority after following due procedure, deleted name of the said company from the record. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh thereafter submitted that illegal occupants had filed Civil Suit No.288 of 2010 before City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for permanent injunction against respondents No.6.1 to 6.3 herein, wherein, the Official Liquidator was party defendant. However, the said suit was withdrawn on 31.10.2012. Thereafter, the respondents No.6.1 to 6.3 have filed Civil Suits No.2610 of 2012, 2611 of 2012, 416 of 2013, 417 of 2013, 418 of 2013 and 520 to 522 of 2013 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against the trespassers, in which Official Liquidator was made a formal party defendant. It is submitted that no relief was asked against the Official Liquidator and therefore permission under Section 446 of Companies Act is not required for filing the aforesaid suit. Thus, it is contended that the property in question is in possession with the Trust prior to the appointment of the Official Liquidator and therefore when the revenue authorities have corrected the entries, the same will not give any right to the Official Liquidator to file the present report and therefore the same be dismissed. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Nangesh Sood appearing for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. D.S. Vasavada appearing for respondent No.1 have supported the case of the Official Liquidator. Both the learned advocates have contended that the land in question was acquired by the erstwhile company by way of assignment deed dated 11.07.1947 through Shri Kantilal Munshaw. This Court passed an order of winding up of Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. in the year 1988 and therefore after the order of winding up is passed by this Court, the revenue authorities cannot effect any change in the revenue record without informing to the Official Liquidator or without permission of this Court. Both the learned advocates contended that no new rights can be created or incomplete right can be completed after the winding up order has been passed by this Court. Learned advocates have placed reliance upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. M/s. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd., reported in AIR 1970 SC 1041 and more particularly para 39. 10. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Learned advocates have placed reliance upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. M/s. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd., reported in AIR 1970 SC 1041 and more particularly para 39. 10. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Vasavada appearing for respondent No.1Union submitted that 1900 workers of the company in liquidation have received amount of Rs.4,44,51,306/out of total dues of Rs.6,71,10,818/and therefore if the land in dispute is sold, then in that case, the workman will also get some more amount towards their legal dues. 11. Learned AGP Mr. V.S. Pathak appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the disputed property in the city survey record is in the name of Hasan Pir Dargah since 1956. The said property was given on lease to Kantilal Chimanlal on 16.11.1925. In 1948, Kantilal Chimanlal had given this property on lease to Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. (company in liquidation). In the year 1965 this property was transferred in name of administrator Zarifkha Faridkha and others. Thereafter on 28.11.2009, name of previous administrator was canceled by mutation entry and name of new administrators Imtiyaz Ahmed and others were mutated. On 24.02.2010, Entry No.207 to 212 were removed and thereby name of Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. have been deleted from the revenue record. It is further submitted that measurement of the land in dispute had been carried out in pursuance to the application given by the new administrators of the Trust and as per the record, there was no possession of the Official Liquidator on or before 08.01.2010. Thus, learned AGP submitted that the revenue authorities have not committed any illegality and therefore the present report filed by the Official Liquidator be dismissed. 12. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of learned advocates for the parties. I have also gone through the material produced on record. It is not disputed that the land in dispute was given on lease to Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. by Kantilal Munshaw. It is also not in dispute that a name of the said company was reflected in the revenue records before the entry Nos.207 to 212 were removed from the revenue record. It is not disputed that the land in dispute was given on lease to Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. by Kantilal Munshaw. It is also not in dispute that a name of the said company was reflected in the revenue records before the entry Nos.207 to 212 were removed from the revenue record. It is also not in dispute that the said company was ordered to be wound up by order of this Court passed on 25.04.1988 and thereafter Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as liquidator of the aforesaid company in liquidation. The Official Liquidator had taken over the possession of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation. It is surprising that administrators/trustees of Hasanshaid's Masjid and Bai Jiya Kabrastan, had not taken any action after lease period was over in the year 1976. It is only when the respondents No.6.1 to 6.3 became trustees of the said trust in the year 2009, they have initiated action for deleting the entry of company in liquidation from the revenue record. The Revenue Authorities without taking permission of this Court and without issuing any notice to the Official Liquidator, deleted the entries No.207 to 212, whereby, name of Shri Ahmedabad Ramkrishna Mills Co. Ltd. has been deleted from the records. The Revenue Authorities have acted in pursuance to the application given by the respondents No.6.1 to 6.3. However, fact remains that after the order of winding up is passed by this Court in the year 1988 and after the Official Liquidator has taken over the possession of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation, Revenue Authorities had created new rights in favour of the respondents No.6.1 to 6.3, which is not permissible in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. (Bombay) Private Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para NO.39 has observed as under: "39. It is thus well established that once a windingup order is passed the undertaking and the assets of the company pass under the control of the liquidator whose statutory duty is to realise them and to pay from out of the sale proceeds its creditors. Such creditors acquire on such order being passed the right to have the assets realised and distributed among them pari passu. Such creditors acquire on such order being passed the right to have the assets realised and distributed among them pari passu. No new rights can thereafter be created and no uncompleted rights can be completed, for doing so would be contrary to the creditors' right to have the proceeds of the assets distributed among them pari passu. But Mr. Sen's argument was that the appellants had acquired under the scheme a vested right to have a second mortgage which could not be nullified by the court passing the winding up order. We cannot accede to this contention for the scheme vested no such right. What it did provide was that in consideration of the company agreeing to execute a second mortgage the appellants and the other Schedule 'B' creditors agreed to receive repayment of debts due to them in the manner provided in the scheme and the agreement of August 16, 1965. On failure of the company to execute the mortgage the consideration for postponement of repayment failed and the monies due to those creditors became immediately payable. It is also not correct to say that the scheme gave any priority to those creditors. Such a priority could result only on the execution of the mortgage which would make them secured creditors." 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, concerned respondent revenue authority has not acted in accordance with law and therefore reliefs prayed for in this report are required to be granted. Thus, the action of City Survey Superintendent of deleting the entries qua land bearing survey No.1160/B/C/D/E/F/G on 24.02.2010 by which name of the company in liquidation has been deleted is hereby declared as null and void. The said action is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.7 is hereby directed to restore the name of the company in liquidation qua land bearing City Survey No. 1160/B/C/D/E/F/G, Nr. Ramkrishna Mills, Gomtipur, Ahmedabad in the Revenue Records. 14. It is clarified that this Court has examined the action of Revenue Authorities, by which name of the company in liquidation is deleted from the revenue record without taking permission of this Court and without informing to the Official Liquidator and therefore the observation made by this Court in this order shall not come in the way of the parties in any other proceedings which are pending or which may be filed in future. 15. 15. With these observations and directions, the Official Liquidator Report is allowed and accordingly disposed of.