Dr. Swatantra Bharat... v. State Of U.P Through..., Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

C.M.W.P No. 54618 of 2007

Advocates

Anurag Khanna
Amit Shukla
A.B.Saran
Paramatma Rai

Judges

Amitava Lala
Ashok Srivastava, JJ.

Acts

section 58(f) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
SECTION 30 LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
Section 58(f)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The recovery proceeding was initiated by P.I.C.U.P (The Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P Ltd.) against the petitioner concerning a disputed land. The petitioner contends that the land in question belongs to them and has no connection with Uma Agrawal or B.B. Agrawal, who claim ownership. P.I.C.U.P relied solely on a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant dated 29.5.1997 and granted a loan without verifying the title of the plot. The petitioner challenged the recovery proceeding, leading to this writ petition. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P was not initially available on record but was subsequently produced by the petitioner’s counsel.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether P.I.C.U.P could initiate recovery proceedings without verifying the title of the land and without possession of title deeds as required under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Whether the petitioner’s claim for compensation under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is relevant to the recovery proceeding initiated by P.I.C.U.P.
Whether the writ court can adjudicate on the title or compensation claims in the context of the recovery proceeding.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, title deeds must be deposited to create any mortgage, which was not done in this case.
The land belongs to the petitioner and is not connected to Uma Agrawal or B.B. Agrawal.
P.I.C.U.P has no role in the petitioner’s claim for compensation, whether pursued before the Collector or Civil Court.

P.I.C.U.P’s Arguments

The land has been acquired by the State, and therefore, the petitioner’s claim should be addressed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The matter should be remanded for appropriate proceedings regarding compensation.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that it cannot adjudicate on the title of the properties or on compensation claims within the writ jurisdiction. However, it emphasized the legal requirement under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, that title deeds must be deposited to create a mortgage, a condition not fulfilled by P.I.C.U.P. The court noted that P.I.C.U.P relied only on a Chartered Accountant’s certificate without verifying the title. Consequently, the court held that no recovery proceeding could be initiated by P.I.C.U.P based on the letter dated 28.7.2005. The court quashed the recovery proceeding and disposed of the writ petition without costs. It also clarified that the petitioner remains free to pursue appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The court quashed the recovery proceeding initiated by P.I.C.U.P on the ground that it was not entitled to proceed without proper title verification and deposit of title deeds as mandated by law. The direct effect is that the petitioner is protected from recovery proceedings initiated without legal foundation. No order as to costs was passed. The court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed the procedural safeguards required under the Transfer of Property Act and the limits of writ jurisdiction regarding title and compensation disputes.

Show full summary ...

Dr. Swatantra Bharat Sharma v. State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Revenue Department, Lucknow And Others

Amitava Lala, J.:— Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of P.I.C.U.P is not available on record and a copy of the same has been produced by learned Counsel for the petitioner be kept with the record.

2. The recovery proceeding has been started at the behest of P.I.C.U.P (The Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P Ltd.) because according to the petitioner the land which has been shown in this writ petition is their land and it has no connection with either Uma Agrawal or B.B Agrawal who are claiming to be owners of the land. The P.I.C.U.P has relied upon only a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant on 29.5.1997 and granted loan without verifying the title of the plot.

3. Sri A.B Saran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended before this Court that under Section 58(f) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the title deeds are required to be deposited for creation of any mortgage. Section 58(f) is quoted hereunder:

“58. (f).—Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.— Where a person in any of the following towns, namely, the towns of Calcutta, Madras, [and Bombay] and in any other town which the [State Government concerned] may, by notification in the official gazette, specify in this behalf, delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property, with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds.”

4. On the other hand Mr. Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for P.I.C.U.P has contended that the land has admittedly acquired by the State, therefore, the petitioner, at this stage, can claim for compensation under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence the matter can be remanded back.

5. Mr. Saran has joined the issue and contended that whether he will go before the Collector or before the Civil Court in immaterial for P.I.C.U.P because P.I.C.U.P has no role to play in respect of claim of the petitioner.

6. According to us, we cannot adjudicate the title of the properties or compensation but within the scope of writ jurisdiction we can clearly hold and say that no recovery proceeding can be initiated at the behest of P.I.C.U.P vide its letter dated 28.7.2005 Hence the recovery proceeding is quashed.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.

8. It is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law or any body called upon to proceed with the same in accordance with law.

Ashok Srivastava, J.:— I agree.

Petition Disposed Of.

Dr. Swatantra Bharat... v. State Of U.P Through...