Leasehold title and Section 446 compliance defeated a belated land claim and invalidated the revenue cancellation order.

Registered lease deeds, later conveyance and confirmation instruments, and city survey records showed that City Survey No. 132 formed part of the company's leasehold, so the applicant's boundary-based claim to exclusive title failed. The delayed assertion of ownership and possession did not displace the consistent documentary record, and the claim was rejected in favour of the Official Liquidator. The Prant Officer's cancellation of the revenue entry was unsustainable because the appeal was time-barred, no basis for condonation was recorded, Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not complied with, the Official Liquidator was not impleaded, and the company application was not disclosed. The revenue order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant had established that City Survey No. 132 was not leased to the company in liquidation and was liable to be returned to him. (ii) Whether the order of the Prant Officer cancelling the revenue entry concerning the land was illegal and liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant had established that City Survey No. 132 was not leased to the company in liquidation and was liable to be returned to him.

Analysis: The lease deed of 1937, read with the earlier lease transaction and the subsequent registered instruments, did not support the applicant's claim that the disputed land remained outside the company's leasehold. The surrounding documentary record, including the later conveyance and confirmation documents and the city survey record, showed that the relevant land formed part of the leasehold enjoyed by the company. The applicant's reliance on boundary recitals alone was insufficient to displace the consistent documentary evidence, especially in view of the delayed assertion of title and possession.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the applicant and in favour of the Official Liquidator.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of the Prant Officer cancelling the revenue entry concerning the land was illegal and liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The appeal before the Prant Officer was found to be time-barred, and no convincing basis for condonation of delay was recorded. The company was under liquidation, yet no permission under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 was obtained and the Official Liquidator was not impleaded. The proceedings were also vitiated by non-disclosure of the pending company application. In addition, the Prant Officer's order could not stand on merits in light of the documentary record showing that the land was leasehold property of the company.

Conclusion: The order of the Prant Officer was held unsustainable and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The applicant's claim to recover the land failed, while the Official Liquidator's challenge to the revenue order succeeded, leaving the liquidation estate protected and the impugned revenue mutation cancelled.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated claim to land cannot succeed against a consistent body of registered documents and revenue records showing leasehold rights, and a revenue order affecting property of a company in liquidation is unsustainable when passed without compliance with Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and without impleading the Official Liquidator.

---