Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1330 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyInaction of the 2nd respondent in not withdrawing the request for listing of the property - Vires of prohibitory list under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 - violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT], since in the instant case as the dues of the 2nd respondent are not part of the resolution plan (as can be seen from para F(i) of the Resolution Plan dated 26.06.2019) which was approved by NCLT, the dues of the 2nd respondent automatically stood extinguished - Consequently, there is no authority for the 2nd respondent to continue to insist that the properties of the petitioner cannot be alienated, and the request made by the 2nd respondent on 10.11.2014 and 18.03.2015 requesting the 3rd and 4th respondents not to permit registrations cannot operate and would be non est in law. As regards the sole defence of the Revenue department that the subject land is an "agricultural land" and the person to register the property is the concerned Tahsildar of Farooqnagar and not any of the respondents, the said plea is without any merit. Along with the reply affidavit, the petitioner has filed several documents showing that the petitioner company was manufacturing iron and steel; that there was a factory located in the said property and Exs. P12 to P16 show the existence of the same. Thus the land ceased to be agricultural land long before the introduction of A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 - The Revenue department cannot be blind to the existence of the factory in the subject property and if it had failed to amend its revenue records suitably, it cannot put blame on the petitioner for the same. The request of the 2nd respondent for listing of the property of the petitioner situated in Sy. No. 394 of Raikul Village and Sy. Nos. 49/E and 50/E of Annaram Village of Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar in the prohibited list under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act, 1908 is declared as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the IBC, 2016 and the consequential proceedings dated 10.11.2014 and 18.03.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent are also declared as null and void and of no effect - Petition allowed.
|