The petitioner was aggrieved by the conduct of the State Financial Corporation, who, in spite of selling the property in auction to the petitioner, had not delivered the possession of M/s. Gokulpur Cold Storage.
When this case is taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent-Financial Corporation submitted that the property sold to the petitioner has been delivered to him and he is in possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioner accepted the said position and submitted that the possession of the property has been delivered to the petitioner. Learned counsel, however, submitted that the property has not been registered by the concerned Registrar.
Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State respondents, submitted that earlier there was an order not to transfer the land, as it attracts restriction of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and the registration is, thus, not possible in view of the letter dated 27th September, 2008, contained in Annexure-B of the counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner replying to the said statement submitted that the said letter is wholly baseless and irrelevant for the present purpose. The land, in question, does not attract the restriction of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and the registration has been arbitrarily stopped by an arbitrary executive order. The order is contrary to the rights recorded in the survey record and is wholly arbitrary and illegal.
So far the said issue is concerned, the same does not involve in the instant writ petition. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order (Annexure-B), if so advised.
However, since the possession has been delivered and the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
I.A No. 1514 of 2011:
In view of the disposal of the writ petition by order dated 19 December, 2011, the applicant does not press this interlocutory application.
I.A No. 1514 of 2011 is rejected as not pressed.
Comments