TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. Two of the above set of civil appeals relate to the very same property i.e. 65.94 acres in various survey numbers, of which the actual dispute is with respect to 40.65 acres; whether those are assigned lands, which revert back to the State on unauthorised transfers being made. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 699/2017, the Company in liquidation, represented by the Official Liquidator (for brevity, O.L) was in ownership and possession of such lands and on the Company sliding into liquidation, the said properties were put in auction by the O.L appointed by the Company Court, in which auction the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 809-810 of 2017 purchased the same. Learned Single Judge confirmed the auction-sale but in appeal by the State, the confirmation was set aside finding the State's claim to be valid, which is challenged by the Company in liquidation as also the purchaser in public auction. In the other appeal the individual appellants together claimed title over just adjacent properties. They raised a contention that the 17.73 acres in their possession, along with the properties which are the subject matter of the other appeals, were in the ownersh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of different extents; 17.73 acres, 18.39 acres and 46.23 acres. The Government proposed to acquire the land belonging to P. Ramanarayna and P. Kalyana Sundar Rao who had purchased the 17.73 acres from B.J. Rao. The acquisition was intended to establish an industry by name M/s Pennar Steels Limited. The Section 4(1) notification dated 26.06.1976 was challenged successfully before the High Court, wherein liberty was reserved to issue fresh notice and to consider the objections of the land owners. In the said Writ Petition, the Government filed a counter affidavit admitting the land in Survey No. 445/82, 445/3 and 445/A4 as 'private patta lands' which counter affidavit is produced as Annexure P6 in Civil Appeal Nos.807-808 of 2017. The last of the sale by B.J. Rao was to Circar Paper Mills in the year 1980 of 46.23 acres, who had also purchased the industrial plot of Pennar Steels, mutating their name in the revenue records. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Nellore had passed an order dated 17.11.1982, finding that B.J. Rao was not holding any excess lands as on 01.01.1975. P. Kalyana Sunder Rao and P. Ramanarayana settled the property in favour of the Sundarammma & ors. by a registered se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ful bid was that of J.K. Sugar Mills Limited for Rs. 7 crore 80 lakhs. 9. The paper publication, in fact, prompted the action by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nellore who issued a telegram dated 16.08.2024 to the O.L, pointing out that out of the lands proposed to be auctioned as per the publication, 41.65 acres may be excluded since they were Government lands. The O.L filed a report Annexure P6 before the Company Judge, which was accepted and J.K. Sugar Mills, the auction purchaser, paid the entire amounts in August 2004. In fact, the auction was conducted on the specific orders issued by the High Court as evident from Annexure P3. The properties were in the custody of the Company Court and the State's contention that it was taken over by the State prior to the auction cannot be countenanced. 10. On the report filed by the O.L regarding the auction, Annexure P12 order was passed by the learned Company Judge. The Mandal Revenue Officer's claim referred to in the report was specifically noticed by the learned Company Judge and he was suo motu impleaded as party respondent. It was specifically noticed that despite expressing no objection to the sale of the properties, subsequentl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the lands from its earlier owner and mutation was effected. It was the said lands in the ownership and possession of Circar Paper Mills Limited, which was taken over by the O.L on 27.03.2001. 12. The O.L had taken over the properties on the orders of the Company Court and any proceedings, if intended against the said lands should have been taken after getting orders from the Company Court. The Government, on noticing the publication, despite it being very clear that the publication was issued by the O.L on orders of the Company Court, merely issued a telegram to exclude the 40.65 acres from auction, without approaching the Company Court. The Company Court on noticing the objection impleaded the Mandal Revenue Officer who did not proceed further with the objection and did not attempt to prove the State's case before the Company Court, as held by the learned Judge. 13. In this context, we have to notice that even in the present appeals, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State only in C.A. No. 809-810 of 2017 wherein a bland statement is made in tabular form that the different extents of properties in the different Survey numbers, totalling 40.65 acres are assigned l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mania University to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, proceedings were initiated under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and an order was passed evicting the respondent from the land. The two appellate remedies having been unsuccessful, writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which were dismissed. However, in appeal, it was found that since there are disputes as to whether the acquisition included the said plots, it was for the Government to file a suit on the subject matter. It was held that the dispute going back to 1942 cannot be dealt with in summary proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act. 15. This Court, in that case dealt with the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 provides that inter alia public roads, street lanes, bed of the sea, harbours and creeks, excluding those coming under the exceptions specified under Clauses (a) to (e) would be declared to be the property of the Government. Sub-section (2) also provided a deeming fiction insofar as public roads and streets vested in any local authority being declared as Government property. This Court found that insofar as the lands covered under sub-sections (1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rescribed. 17. As we observed the subject lands were said to be in the possession of the predecessors-in-interest of Sundaramma and others from 1920 onwards; which cannot be taken over by the Government through a summary procedure, as adopted herein on the ground of vesting of such properties by reason of an unauthorized transfer of assigned lands. The assignment of lands also has not been established unequivocally, nor can it be done in a writ proceeding or as is also the issue in the present case, before the Company Court dealing with the auction of the properties in possession of a Company in liquidation. Admittedly the O.L of the Company took possession of the lands in which an industry had been carried on for considerable time, with sanctions and permissions obtained from the Government; presumably. The landlords also claim title on the strength of registered deeds as also mutation entries carried out in accordance with sale deeds. The Government cannot plead ignorance of either the sanctions and permissions granted or of the mutation entries made. The acquisition of the properties as carried out by the Government for APIIC clearly indicates the ownership of at least the....