ORDER : 1. The applicants, who claim to be the owners of the land situated at Survey No.90/1 admeasuring 2 Acres situated at Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - Hyderabad, Telangana State (“the subject land”) have preferred this application seeking, inter alia, a direction to the Official Liquidator, the respondent, to surrender and handover peaceful and vacant possession of the subject land to the applicants and also to remove all the boards and fixtures erected over and articles brought at, the subject land by the representatives of the Official Liquidator. 2. Background facts can be stated, in brief, as under: (a) In Company Petition No.82 of 1988 and connected petitions, by an order dated 21st June, 2007, the Official Liquidator, High Court, came to be appointed as the Liquidator of M/s. Industrial and Agricultural Engineering Company (India) Limited (“I.A.E.C. (India) Ltd.”) with usual powers under the Companies Act, 1956. (b) The Official Liquidator, according to the applicants, on the strength of false and incorrect information received from M/s. Sripad Deshpande & Co., that the subject land is the property of I.A.E.C. (India) Ltd., the Company in Liquidation, proceeded to take possession of the subject land without verifying any record pertaining to the ownership of the subject land and following the due process under the Companies Act, 1956. (c) The applicants claim initially the representatives of the Official Liquidator proceeded to take symbolic possession of the subject land vide Minutes of Meeting dated 24th February, 2021 and, subsequently, vide Minutes of Meeting dated 5th July, 2021 actual physical possession of the subject land was purportedly taken and the boards of the Official Liquidator were erected at the subject land, without ascertaining even prima facie title to the subject land only on the basis of the communication of M/s. Shripad Deshpande & Co., whose ill desire to acquire the land was not acceded to by the applicants. (d) The applicants assert that Mr. Alluru Krishnamaraju son of Alluru Ramaraju was the original holder of the subject land and land bearing Survey Nos.90/2 and 92. The said Alluru Krishnamaraju sold the subject land alongwith Survey Nos.90/2 and 92 to I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., by executing a registered Sale Deed dated 1st October, 1962. The applicants assert I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. is not the Company in Liquidation. The said Alluru Krishnamaraju sold the subject land alongwith Survey Nos.90/2 and 92 to I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., by executing a registered Sale Deed dated 1st October, 1962. The applicants assert I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. is not the Company in Liquidation. I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., in turn, conveyed the subject land to N. Minna Reddy son of N. Narsimha Reddy under an unregistered Sale Deed dated 1st April, 1982. The Deed was executed by Mr. T. K. Shamu, the Managing Director of I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. armed with a Board Resolution dated 1st February, 1982. (e) Post the said purported sale, the said I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. amalgamated into I.A.E.C. (India) Ltd., the Company in Liquidation. (f) On 12th July, 1995, according to the applicants, N. Minna Reddy, their predecessor in title, through Power of Attorney holders K. Nageshwara Rao and Vishnu Vardhan Reddy executed a registered Sale Deed bearing No.8819/1995 in favour of applicant No.1 conveying 1 Acre subject land out of 4 Acres of Survey No.90/1. Likewise, by another registered Sale Deed of even date the said N. Minna Reddy conveyed another parcel of 1 Acre of land out of 4 Acres land bearing Survey No.90/1 in favour of the predecessor of applicant No.2 T. Krishna Murari. Deeds of Rectification were executed on 13th September, 1996 to correct typographical errors in the Sale Deed dated 12th July, 1995. (g) In the intervening period, the applicants claim, N. Minna Reddy, the predecessor in title of the applicants had filed proceedings under Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, (“the Telangana Act, 1971”) for regularization and validation of the sale. Under a Certificate dated 21st September, 1994, the Competent Authority after conducting necessary inquiry; recovering the requisite stampduty and registration fee and having satisfied itself declared the sale evidenced by unregistered Sale Deed valid under Section 5-A of the Telangana Act, 1971. Thus, according to the applicants, the title of their predecessor in title over the subject land was validated in accordance with the statutory provisions. (h) Asserting the aforesaid case of perfection of title to the subject land, the applicants assailed the action of the Official Liquidator in taking possession of the subject land allegedly sans any material to show that the subject land ever belonged to the Company in Liquidation. (h) Asserting the aforesaid case of perfection of title to the subject land, the applicants assailed the action of the Official Liquidator in taking possession of the subject land allegedly sans any material to show that the subject land ever belonged to the Company in Liquidation. The said act of the Official Liquidator is stated to be in derogation of the provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956, especially the procedure delineated under Section 456(1)(A). The applicants thus seek a direction to the Official Liquidator to handover the subject land and remove the board and fixtures indicating that the subject land is in custody of the Official Liquidator. 3. The Official Liquidator has resisted the prayers in the application by filing an affidavit-in-reply. The Official Liquidator contends the applicants claim of acquisition of ownership over the subject land is fraught with an insurmountable impediment in law as their predecessor in title N. Minna Reddy allegedly acquired the subject land under an unregistered Sale Deed. Reliance sought to be placed on the revenue record maintained under the Telangana Act, 1971 is wholly misplaced as it is well recognised that the entries in the revenue record do not confer any title and are made for fiscal purposes only. 4. The Official Liquidator justifies his action of taking over the possession of the subject land as being completely in discharge of his statutory duty enshrined under Section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Official Liquidator cliams to have gathered the information about the subject land being an asset of the Company in Liquidation from the letter of Mr. Shripad Deshpande dated 29th September, 2019 appended to the affidavit-in-reply at Exhibit-C. 5. Post an affidavit-in-rejoinder, the Official Liquidator filed an additional affidavit-in-reply and submitted that no record could be found as regards the amalgamation of I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. with I.A.E.C. (India) Ltd., the Company in Liquidation. 6. It would be contextually relevant to note that an Interim Application (L) No.25529 of 2022 was filed by one Mr. Adla Dilip Kumar Reddy seeking to intervene in this application and oppose the prayers therein. The said applicant, however, withdrew the application on 19th October, 2022. Subsequently, Mr. 6. It would be contextually relevant to note that an Interim Application (L) No.25529 of 2022 was filed by one Mr. Adla Dilip Kumar Reddy seeking to intervene in this application and oppose the prayers therein. The said applicant, however, withdrew the application on 19th October, 2022. Subsequently, Mr. S. K. Nagoor Mira Vali has filed Interim Application (L) No.33208 of 2022 seeking direction to the Official Liquidator to make inquiry into the ownership of land situated at Survey No.90/1 and Survey No.90/2 which according to the applicants belong to the Company in Liquidation, and uphold the action of the Official Liquidator to take possession of the subject land as legal and valid. The applicant herein have filed an affidavit-inreply to this application questioning the locus and motive of the applicant and substantially reiterating the averments in the instant application. 7. Evidently, the fate of Interim Application (L) No.33208 of 2022 hinges upon the determination of Interim Application (L) No.19093 of 2021. Hence, the parties were heard in Interim Application (L) No.19093 of 2021. 8. I Have heard Mr. Ardeshir, the learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Pimple, the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator, at some length. 9. Mr. Ardeshir submitted that the foundational premise of the Official Liquidator that the subject land was initially acquired by the Company in Liquidation is not factually correct. The subject land alongwith land bearing Gat No.90/1 and 90/2 was purchased by M/s. I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. under the Sale Deed dated 1st October, 1962. I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., was a distinct entity till it merged with I.A.E.C. (India) Ltd., the Company in Liquidation. 10. Taking the Court through the Sale Deed dated 1st October, 1962 and the Sale Deed dated 1st April, 1982, under which I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. conveyed the subject land to N. Minna Reddy, the predecessor in title of the applicants, Mr. Ardeshir would urge that the subject land was sold to the predecessor in title of the applicants, much before the amalgamation of I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. into I.A.E.C. (India) Ltd., the Company in Liquidation. Mr. Ardeshir would thus urge that the subject land was never the property of the Company in Liquidation. 11. Mr. Ardeshir would urge that the subject land was sold to the predecessor in title of the applicants, much before the amalgamation of I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. into I.A.E.C. (India) Ltd., the Company in Liquidation. Mr. Ardeshir would thus urge that the subject land was never the property of the Company in Liquidation. 11. Mr. Ardeshir strenuously submitted that the fact that the Official Liquidator had not carried out any inquiry and proceeded to straightway take the possession of the subject land merely on the basis of the letter received from Mr. Shripad Deshpande is borne out by the categorical admission in the affidavit-in-reply that on the basis of such information the Official Liquidator took possession of the subject land. Mr. Ardeshir would urge that had the Official Liquidator consulted the relevant record he would have realized that the predecessor in title of the applicants had perfected the title to the subject land in accordance with the provisions contained in the Telangana Act, 1971. 12. Laying emphasis on the provisions contained in the Telangana Act, 1971 especially Section 5-A in the light of the object of the legislature, Mr. Ardeshir submitted that the validation of the transaction under an unregistered instrument, post the issue of certificate under Sub-section (4) of Section 5-A is as valid and lawful as if the instrument had been executed in conformity with the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908. 13. Mr. Pimple, the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator, submitted that the reliance sought to be placed on the provisions contained in the Telangana Act, 1971 in support of claim of title over the subject land is not well-founded. Mr. Pimple urged with tenacity that at best the provisions contained in the Telangana Act, 1971 override the provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908. However, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908 operate in different fields. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Section 5-A of the Telangana Act, 1971, according to Mr. Pimple, the transaction of sale could not have been effected in breach of the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Mr. Pimple would urge that the Telangana Act, 1971 is primarily meant to maintain the revenue record. It nowhere confers title in respect of the property which is conveyed in breach of the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Mr. Pimple would urge that the Telangana Act, 1971 is primarily meant to maintain the revenue record. It nowhere confers title in respect of the property which is conveyed in breach of the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 14. Before adverting to the provisions contained in the Telangana Act, 1971, around which the rival submissions revolved, it may be apposite to note few facts which are, by and large, admitted. Firstly, the Sale Deed dated 1st October, 1961 evidences the acquisition of the subject land and lands bearing Survey Nos. 90/2 and 92 by I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. from Mr. Alluru Krishnamaraju. The Sale Deed dated 1st April, 1982, under which the predecessor in title of the applicants allegedly acquired ownership, was admittedly unregistered. It purports to have been executed by Mr. T. K. Shamu, the Managing Director, I.A.E.C. (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd. armed with Board Resolution dated 1st February, 1982. Two registered Sale Deeds dated 12th July, 1995 evidence the sale of the subject land to the applicants by Mr. N. Minna Reddy. The missing link, in this chain of instruments of transfer, is the want of registration of the Sale Deeds dated 1st April, 1982. 15. The controversy between the parties thus revolves around the question as to whether the transaction evidenced by the said Sale Deed came to be validated. The applicants claim it was validated in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 5-A of the Telangana Act, 1971 as evidenced by the certificate issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act. Official Liquidator controverts the same. 16. At this juncture, recourse to the relevant provisions contained in the Telangana Act, 1971 becomes necessary. Section 2(6) defines an “occupant” as under: “2(6) “Occupant” means a person in actual possession of land, other than a tenant or a usufructuary mortagee.” Whereas the owner is defined under Section 2(6-A) as under: “2(6-a) “Owner” means a person who has permanent and heritable rights of possession on the land which can be alienated and includes the holder of a patta issued to him as a landless poor person.” “Record of right” is defined under Section-2(9) as under: “2(9) “record of right” means records prepared and maintained under the provisions, or for the purposes of this Act.” 17. Section 3 of the Act makes provisions for preparation and maintenance of record of right in all lands. Section 3 of the Act makes provisions for preparation and maintenance of record of right in all lands. Section 5 makes provisions for amendment and updating of record of right. Section 6 incorporate presumption of correctness of entries in record of right. Section 7 incorporates provisions for inspection and furnishing copies of the record of right. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 bars institution of any suit against the Government or any Officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have entry made or in relation to the entry made in any record of right or to have any such entry omitted or amended. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 an aggrieved person is, however, entitled to institute a suit to assert his title. 18. Mr. Pimple is justified in canvassing a submission that the primary object of the Telangana Act, 1971 seems to be to provide a regime for keeping the record of right of the lands; in the manner and form prescribed therein, amend and update the record with the change in holding and issue copies thereof. However, the provisions contained in Section 5-A of the Act inserted by Amendment Act No.1 of 1989 make a significant departure. 19. Section 5-A of the Act reads as under: “5-A. Regulation of certain alientions or other transfers of lands. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 1 of 1882(, the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, [where a person is an occupant] by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alinee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. (2) On receipt of such application the Mandal Revenue Officer, shall, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908) as fixed by the registering officer on a reference made to him by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as maybe prescribed: Provided that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Land Rerforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973), the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976), the Telangana Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) and the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977). (3) Noting contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973), the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Central Act 33 of 1976), the Telangana Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) and the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977). (4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount specified in sub-section (2), shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908, be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him. (5) The [Mandal Revenue Officer], shall on the production of the certificate issue under sub-section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property.] [(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section 92) of Section 5-A, the Tahsildar shall regularize claims of those applicants who apply not later than 31.12.2017 and have been in possession and do not have sada bainama (unregistered) document, based on enjoyment survey, local enquiry, approval of Gramsabha and it shall be limited upto AC. 5.00 gts.].” 20. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that the State Legislature by employing a non-obstante clause instituted a mechanism to validate alienations or transfers which were not in conformity with the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, by making an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of a certificate that such alienation or transfer is valid. Under Subsection (2) of Section 5-A the Mandal Revenue Officer was required to make an inquiry and determine the stamp-duty and registration fee payable on the instrument had the alienation or transfer been effected in conformity with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act and make the applicant deposit the said amount. The Mandal Revenue Officer was further required to satisfy himself that the alienation or transfer was not in contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Land Rerforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Telangana Scheduled areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 21. Only upon such satisfaction and deposit of the specified amount the Mandal Revenue Officer was to issue a certificate to the alienee or transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer was valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming under the latter. Sub-section (5) casts an obligation on Mandal Revenue Officer to make an entry in the passbook to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property. 22. Sub-section (5) casts an obligation on Mandal Revenue Officer to make an entry in the passbook to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property. 22. Section 5-B provides for an appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar under Sub-section (4) of Section 5-A to the Revenue Divisional Officer. 23. If the aforesaid provisions of Section 5-A and 5-B are read in conjunction, they lend support to the submission of Mr. Ardeshir that, in a sense, they constitute a complete code in tehmselves in the matter of validation of alienations or transfers of land which were otherwise not in order. 24. Mr. Pimple laying emphasis on the omission of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 from Sub-section (4) of Section 5-A urged that the non obstante clause is restricted to the Registration Act. I find it rather difficult to the accede to this submission. Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A makes it explicitly clear that the intent of the State legislature was to validate the alienations or transfers which were executed in breach of the provisions contained not only in the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act but also other laws for the time being in force. The omission to include the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in Sub-section (4) of Section 5-A thus does not indicate that if such transaction is in breach of the manner of effecting transfer provided under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the defect is not curable despite grant of certificate under Sub-section (4) of Section 5-A. 25. The statement of object and reasons of the Amendment Act, 1989 makes the intent of the State legislature explicitly clear. It reads as under: “Section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 authorises the Government to issue Pass Books to the ryots to enable them to secure loans on the basis of entries made in the pass-books without approaching the village level functionaries and others every time. Several instances have come to note where the credit lending agencies are not accepting the Pattadar Pass Book as an authentic document. It is propose to make the entries in the Pattadar Pass Books acceptable evidence of the title to the property on the security of which loan is proposed to be raised for the convenience of the farmers. Several instances have come to note where the credit lending agencies are not accepting the Pattadar Pass Book as an authentic document. It is propose to make the entries in the Pattadar Pass Books acceptable evidence of the title to the property on the security of which loan is proposed to be raised for the convenience of the farmers. It has also been decided to regularise certain unregistered alienation or other transfers of land, so that loans can be raised on such land. This Bill seeks to give effect to the above decisions.” (emphasis supplied) 26. Evidently, the State Legislature had decided to regularize certain unregistered alienation or other transfers of land albeit to facilitate the holders of such lands to raise loans by creating security over such lands. The State Legislature, as the statement of objects and reasons evinces, considered it appropriate to carve out a class of alienation or transfers which suffered invalidity on account of want of registration and rectify the defect in title. Legislative device of giving overriding effect to the provisions of Section 5-A by employing a non-obstante clause was resorted to. The Legislature also took care to take out certain alienations or transfers which were in contravention of the legislations specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 5-A from the ameliorative provision. Regularization of alienation or transfers effected by unregistered instrument after recovering the requisite stamp-duty and registration fee and making necessary inquiry, was thus the clear and explicit object which the State Legislature intended to achieve. 27. It would be contextually relevant to note that Act No.1 of 1989, the provisions of which are inconsistent with the provisions contained in Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908, was reserved for the consideration of the President and received the assent of the President on 27th February, 1989. Consequently, in view of the provisions contained in Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the Telangana Act, 1971 would prevail in that State notwithstanding the mandate contained in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 28. Consequently, in view of the provisions contained in Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the Telangana Act, 1971 would prevail in that State notwithstanding the mandate contained in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 28. Viewed through the aforesaid prism, the certificate dated 21st September, 1994 (Page 50A issued in Form-13B under Section 5-A(4) of the Telangana Act, 1971) evidences the validation of the transaction of sale of land bearing Survey No.90/1 effected by unregistered Sale Deeds dated 1st April, 1982 upon payment of the stamp-duty of Rs.12,000/- and registration fee of Rs.650/-. Thus, the title of N. Minna Reddy, the predecessor in title of the applicants, was perfected before the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 12th July, 1995 in favour of the applicants 29. In contrast, there is not an iota of material to bolster up the case of the Official Liquidator that the subject land formed part of the asset of the Company in Liquidation. Mr. Pimple made an endeavour to justify the action of the Official Liquidator by canvassing a submission that under Section 456 the Official Liquidator is enjoined to take into custody the property to which the company is or appears to be entitled. Reliance was sought to be placed on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ajay Y. Mafatlal vs. The Official Liquidator of M/s. Mafatlal Dyes Chemicals Ltd., 2015 SCC Online Bom 7696 to lend support to this submission. 30. Undoubtedly, under Section 456(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 the Official Liquidator is empowered to take into his custody or control even such property which appears to be the property of the Company in Liquidation. Nonetheless, there ought to be some material which would justify an inference that the property apparently belongs to Company in Liquidation. 31. In the case at hand, as noted above, the Official Liquidator professedly took possession of the subject land on the basis of the information gathered from the communication addressed by Mr. Shripad Deshpande. Nonetheless, there ought to be some material which would justify an inference that the property apparently belongs to Company in Liquidation. 31. In the case at hand, as noted above, the Official Liquidator professedly took possession of the subject land on the basis of the information gathered from the communication addressed by Mr. Shripad Deshpande. In the face of the aforesaid instruments and certificate of validation of the sale issued by a competent authority under Section 5-A of the Telangana Act, 1971, it would be rather difficult to sustain the Official Liquidator’s claim that he had reason to believe that the property appeared to be that of the Company in Liquidation. 32. The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that the action of the Official Liquidator of taking possession of the subject land is not legally sustainable. 33. Before parting, it is necessary to note that SK Nagoor Mira Vali, the applicant in Interim Application (L) No.33208 of 2022, has made myriad allegations. Reference is made to a number of proceedings in respect of the subject land and other land forming part of Survey No.90/1 and the land bearing survey number Survey Nos.90/2 and 92. In the light of the aforesaid view, which the Court is persuaded to take in Interim Application (L) No.19093 of 2021, on the basis of the material which is placed before the Court, the prayers in Interim Application (L) No.33208 of 2022 do not deserve to be countenanced as they in effect seek to sustain the order of the Official Liquidator. 34. Nonetheless, the Court considers it appropriate to guard against a situation which may present a case of the applicants prima faice title being displaced by material which is not before the Court. Thus, it would be expedient to grant liberty to the Official Liquidator to move the Court in case the Official Liquidator finds further material of sterling quality to lay claim over the subject land as an asset of the Company in Liquidation. 35. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the application deserves to be partly allowed. 36. Hence, the following order: : ORDER : (i) Interim Application (L) No.19093 of 2021 stands partly allowed. 35. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the application deserves to be partly allowed. 36. Hence, the following order: : ORDER : (i) Interim Application (L) No.19093 of 2021 stands partly allowed. (ii) The Official Liquidator is directed to handover possession of the subject land to the applicants in the same state in which the Official Liquidator had obtained physical possession thereof as recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 5th July, 2021 within a period of four weeks from today. (iii) The Official Liquidator shall also remove the boards and fixtures erected over the subject land. (iv) The Official Liquidator shall, however, be at liberty to move the Court in case the Official Liquidator finds further material of sterling quality to lay claim over the subject land as an asset of the Company in Liquidation. (v) In view of the disposal of Interim Application (L) No.19093 of 2021, Interim Application (L) No. 33208 of 2022, also stands disposed.