Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2011 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1097 - HC - Indian LawsPublic auction - possession of the property - title of the property - petitioner challenged the order passed by the first respondent and has sought a declaration that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no authority to put the C.A. site, for public auction and other incidental reliefs - Held that:- Under Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 11, it is clearly stated that any party who is aggrieved by an order passed, may institute a suit, in a civil court to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but subject, to the result of such suit, if any, the order of the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive. Therefore, the petitioner herein is disabled to file a suit with regard to possession, as also with regard to title in respect of the property in question in view of the finding with regard to title being given by the respondent authorities. Therefore if a suit is filed by the petitioner, then in that, case, any decree to be passed in the said suit would have to override the order that is impugned in this writ petition. Under the circumstances, the said rule states that the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive, but it would be subject to the result of any suit that would be filed by a person who is aggrieved by an order passed under Rule 11. Therefore, the petitioner herein is at liberty to file a suit insofar as the property in question, is concerned not only against the third respondent herein, but also against any such person who is claiming the said property and any decree to be passed in the said suit would override the order impugned in this writ petition. Therefore the order impugned is kept in abeyance until the petitioner succeeds in establishing its right, title and interest as well as possession over the property in question. In order to enable the petitioner to do so, taking into consideration that there is a serious dispute regarding the site in question, it is also necessary that both the parties would have to maintain status quo insofar as the property is concerned.
|