TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 80
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amework governing such allotments. The rights and obligations relating to industrial land, including execution and transfer of lease deeds, transfer of assets, and handing over of possession, are governed by the M.P. Rajya Audhyogik Bhumi Evam Bhawan Prabandhan Niyam, 2015. Industrial plots bearing Nos. 110-B and 111 measuring 13,104.08 sq. metres and Plot No. 110-A measuring 4,368.02 sq. metres situated at Malanpur, District Bhind, were allotted in favour of respondent No.2 in the years 1992 and 1996 respectively. Lease deeds and an amended lease deed were executed in favour of respondent No.2. For establishment of its industrial unit, respondent No.2 obtained financial assistance from the State Bank of India and assigned its leasehold rights in favour of the Bank as security. Upon default in repayment of the loan, the Bank took possession of the assets situated on the leased land and conducted an auction. Respondent No.1 purchased only the industrial assets standing on the land through the auction sale on 11.03.2014. According to the petitioner, the auction did not result in transfer of the leasehold rights over the land, which continued to remain vested in the petitioner until t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. Along with the appeal, respondent No.1 relied upon the sale certificate issued by the State Bank of India, partnership documents, correspondence exchanged with the petitioner and an interim order dated 30.11.2015 passed in W.P. No.2265/2015. The appellate authority granted interim protection on 15.09.2020. The petitioner filed a detailed reply contending that respondent No.1 had purchased only the assets situated on the land, had failed to obtain transfer of the lease in accordance with the statutory rules, had not complied with the order dated 10.10.2016, and consequently had no legal title or authority to continue in possession of the land. By the impugned order dated 28.11.2020, however, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable as it has been passed without considering the detailed reply and counter affidavit filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. It is contended that the order merely records the submissions advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 and neither reflects the appearance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the interim protection granted therein could not have been treated as a bar against proceedings initiated under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedhakli) Adhiniyam, 1974. It is lastly contended that had the appellate authority examined the petitioner's detailed reply, the relevant statutory rules, the terms of the lease deed and the effect of the order dated 10.10.2016, it could not have interfered with the eviction order. The impugned order suffers from complete non-consideration of relevant material, ignores the statutory scheme governing transfer of leasehold rights, proceeds on irrelevant considerations, and is therefore arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order dated 28.11.2020 be quashed and the eviction order dated 09.09.2020 be restored. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the present writ petition filed by "the Competent Authority Cum Executive Director" challenging the order dated 28.11.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority, the Commissioner of Chambal Division, Morena, is fundamentally not maintainable. The lower quasi-judicial adjudicating authority, whose original order dated 09.09.2020 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor. Statutory mandates under Sub-Rule (7) and Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, dictate that an auction purchaser who buys property sold free from encumbrances cannot be saddled with past liabilities incurred by the predecessor-in-interest prior to the date of the Sale Certificate. Promptly after acquiring the property, Respondent No. 1 applied on 07.11.2014 for the formal transfer of leasehold rights. Instead of completing the administrative transfer, the authorities illegally raised a demand of Rs. 18,51,907/-, later inflated to Rs. 27,62,897/-, seeking to recover past dues left unpaid by the defaulting prior entity, M/s. Super Sack. Respondent No. 1 resisted this uncalled-for demand, asserting that an auction purchaser in a "free from encumbrance" SARFAESI sale cannot be made liable for past arrears of the original borrower, a principle affirmed in decisions such as W.P. No. 5812/2013 (M/s Virendra Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.). The subsequent actions of cancelling the lease on 10.05.2016 and initiating eviction proceedings were wholly arbitrary. The summary or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rank trespasser or a person who has clandestinely occupied the premises. The very foundation of respondent No.1's possession is traceable to a statutory auction conducted by the secured creditor. Merely because disputes subsequently arose regarding transfer of leasehold rights or liability to pay earlier dues, respondent No.1 cannot be brought within the ambit of "unauthorised occupation" as defined under Section 2(g) of the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974. The controversy between the parties substantially relates to transfer of leasehold rights and determination of financial liabilities arising out of the auction sale. Such issues cannot, by themselves, furnish a basis for invoking the summary eviction mechanism contemplated under the Adhiniyam. The Competent Authority proceeded on the assumption that non-transfer of lease automatically rendered respondent No.1 an unauthorized occupant, without appreciating the legal effect of the auction sale and the nature of possession acquired by respondent No.1 through the secured creditor. This Court also finds substance in the submission advanced on behalf of respondent No.1 that the dispute regarding recovery of out....