Gujarat High Court
Asia Motor Works Limited vs Special Secretary Revenue Department on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 65 of 2025
==========================================================
ASIA MOTOR WORKS LIMITED
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS PRACHITI V SHAH(9990) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,7
MR AR THACKER(888) for the Respondent(s) No. 6.2,6.3
REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,6.1,6.4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner impugns order dated 14.10.2024, passed by the learned Secretary (Appeals) in Revision Application No. 73 of 2024, whereby the revision application of the petitioner herein has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner company has no locus since it has gone in liquidation as by order dated 28.07.2023, in CP (IB) 184 of 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Mr. Avil Menezes is appointed as a liquidator of the company and all the powers of the Board of Directors, key managerial persons and partner of the corporate debtor, thereafter, cease to exist.
2. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioner company executed the agreement for sale in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 178/2 at Kanaya bay, Taluka- Bhuj, District - Kutch ad-measuring about 7 acres.
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
3. The petitioner company purchased the said subject land from Mr. Mohammed Bhatti vide registered sale deed dated 11.05.2005. Accordingly, mutation entry No. 983 came to be affected in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner company. Thereafter, the petitioner company sought permission under Section 89(a) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (wither Region and Kutch) Area Act, 1958 for use of the subject land in question for non- agricultural purpose. The said permission also came to be granted and the petitioner company is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land since then.
4. That in the year 2016, one Jamnaben and legal heirs of Late Karsan Rupa Varhcand, the respondent nos. 5 and 6.1 to 6.4 herein, filed an Appeal No. 1 of 2016 before the learned Deputy Collector, Bhuj Prant, challenging Mutation Entry No. 638 affected in favour of the predecessor in title of the petitioner company i.e. Mr. Mohammed Bhatti on the ground that the execution of registered sale deed was unlawful. It was alleged that the original owner of the said land in question Sama Varchand had not executed a valid sale deed in favour of Mohammed Bhatti the predecessor in title of the petitioner and accordingly prayed for cancellation of mutation Entry no. 638 and further entries in the revenue records. Since the petitioner was the purchaser from Mr. Mohammed Bhatti and directly affected by challenge to Mutation Entry no. 638, it contested the said appeal.
4. By order dated 27.11.2020, the respondent no. 2 Assistant Collector, Bhuj (Bhuj Prant) allowed the said appeal. The delay of 15 years came to be condoned and the Mutation Entry no 638 in favour of Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Mohammed Bhatti, the predecessor in title of the petitioner, came to be cancelled and subsequently entry no. 938 in favour of the petitioner, who is the present owner of the subject land in question, also came to be cancelled.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed a Revision Case No. 43 of 2021 before the learned Collector, Bhuj who by order dated 23.12.2023, was pleased to uphold the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector upholding the cancellation of mutation entry No. 638 and subsequently entry in favour of petitioner.
6. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed Revision No. 73 of 2024 before the learned Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department. By the impugned order the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, has rejected the Revision Application no. 73 of 2024 holding that the petitioner company has no locus standi to prosecute the said Revision Application. The Revision Application came to be disposed of without entering into the merits of the case.
7. The learned counsel Ms. Prachiti V Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the subject land in question by way of registered sale deed dated 11.05.2005. On the basis of the said registered sale deed, mutation entry no. 938 came to be mutated in the revenue record in favour of petitioner and the same also came to be certified. The petitioner thereafter has obtained Non- Agriculture use permission for industrial purpose which also came to be granted and at present, the subject land is being used for industrial purpose. The learned counsel submits that in the year 2016, the respondent nos 5 and 6.1 to 6.4 have sought Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined to challenge the revenue entry no. 638 in favour of predecessor in title of the petitioner which was entered in the revenue records in the year 2001.
8. The learned counsel submits that the Revenue Authorities below have cancelled the mutation entry no. 638 after a period of more than 15 years without any justifiable reasons. The challenge to such mutation entry was after a gross delay of 15 years without any plausible explanation. She submits that the learned Collector has upheld the findings returned by the learned Assistant Collector (Bhuj Prant) Aggrieved the petitioner had preferred the revision application no. 73 of 2024. The learned counsel submits that instead of adjudicating the revision proceedings on its own merits, the learned Secretary (Appeals) has dismissed the same on the ground of locus of the petitioner on an erronious assumption that the petitioner company has gone into liquidation and as the liquidator has been appointed, the Directors of the petitioner company have ceased to exist.
9. The learned counsel submits that learned Secretary (Appeals) has relied on the order dated 28.07.2023 in CP (IB) NO. 184 of 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahemdabad whereby the one Mr. Avil Menezes has been appointed as the liquidator of the company AMW Motors Limited.
10. The learned counsel submits that the said company AMW Motors limited is a distinct company and independent of the petitioner which has demereged from the Petitioner. She submits that by order dated 29.08.2012, under Section 394 of the Companies Act, in Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Company Petition No. 135 of 2012 connected with Company Application No. 473 of 2011, the present petitioner and AMW Motors Limited, both the companies have demerged and accordingly, the assets have also been divided amongst both the companies.
11. The learned counsel submits that the present petitioner company has nothing to do with the functioning of the AMW Motors Limited. The petitioner company is still in active business. In support thereof the petitioner has produced the company information as available on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India wherein the present petitioner has been shown to be active company and the company status is also shown as active. She submits that the petitioner company has also filed an additional affidavit dated 09.01.2025 specifically avering that the petitioner company is not under liquidation and is an active company. She, therefore, submits that an error has been committed by the learned Secretary (Appeals) and the Revision Application of the petitioner has been dismissed holding that the Directors of the present company have ceased to exist and therefore, have no locus to maintain the revision proceedings.
12. Per contra, Mr. Shivang Thaker Advocate appearing on behalf of the Mr. A.R. Thaker Advocate for respondent nos. 6.2 and 6.3 submits that the petitioner has not produced correct facts on record before this court. He submits that in the present case, the subject land was sold after the death of the original owner without joining his legal heirs. There was no heirship entry mutated in the revenue records and the respondent nos. 5 and 6.1 to 6.4 who are the heirs of the original owner were not even served with 135D notice while effecting the revenue entry no. 638 in favour of Mr. Mohammed Bhatti, who is Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined alleged to have purchased the subject land in the year 2001 by a registered sale deed.
13. He submits that the respondent challenged the said mutation entry on coming to know of such fraud. The Assistant Collector, Bhuj after recording the reasons, condoned the delay and after considering the case on merits, allowed the appeal of the contesting respondents and set aside the mutation entry no. 638. Mr. Thaker, further submits that the said findings were upheld by the learned Collector Bhuj.
14. The learned counsel submits that in the revision proceedings before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, it was brought to the notice of the learned Secretary (Appeals) that the petitioner is taking different stand before the various authorities. He submits that in the land grabbing proceedings initiated by the answering respondent against the petitioner it was submitted by the Directors of the petitioner company before the Competent Authority that there is liquidation process under way and therefore, no proceedings under the land grabbing proceedings were maintainable against them. He submits that in view of such a stand taken by the petitioner company in the land grabbing proceedings, the petitioner brought the same to the notice of the learned Secretary (Appeals) who thereafter, relying on the order passed by the learned National Company Law Tribunal has held that the directors of the petitioner company have ceased the exist as all the powers are now vested with the liquidator and therefore, the learned Secretary (Appeals) has rightly rejected the revision application of the petitioner on the ground of locus standi. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has adopted the policy of approbating and reprobating. He submits that in the proceedings before the Land Grabbing Committees, the petitioner has Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined take a stand that their company has gone into liquidation where as in the present proceedings they have taken a stand that the petitioner is not in liquidation and the company which has gone into liquidation is a demerged company and therefore, the Board of Directors of the petitioner still have locus to maintain such revenue proceedings. The learned counsel submits that this conduct of the petitioner amounts to not approaching this court with clean hands and therefore also, the present writ petition may not be entertained.
15. The learned counsel submits that the writ petition of the petitioner also does not disclose complete facts and there is material suppression of facts. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgment:
i)"Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 "
ii) "Union of India and Others Vs. N Murugesan and Others (2022) 2 SCC 25"
iii) "Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha 2024 (O) AIJEL-SC 72994"
iv) "Ashwinbhai Kantibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat 2022 (O) AIJEL-HC 243664"
16. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.
17. By the impugned order, the learned Secretary (Appeals) has dismissed the revision application of the petitioner company on the ground that the Directors of the petitioner company no more have the locus to maintain the revision application in view of the order dated 28.07.2023, in CP IB No.184 of 2018 passed by the National Company Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Law Tribunal, Ahemdabad Bench. By the said order, the learned Tribunal has appointed a liquidator for the company - AMW Motors Limited and subsequent thereto, all the powers to the Board of Directors, Managerial persons, partners of the corporate debtor have ceased to exist. All powers thereafter have vested with the liquidator. This is a sole ground on which the revision application of the petitioner has been dismissed.
18. It is also placed on record by the petitioner that by order dated 29.08.2012 in Company Petition No. 135 of 2012 connected with Company Application no. 473 of 2011, the petitioner company Asia Motor Works Limited came to be demerged from two companies AMW Motor Limited and AMW Auto Components Limited.
19. The liquidation proceedings as mentioned in the impugned order are in respect of the demerged company AMW Auto Components Limited which is in liquidation. The petitioner has produced on record the extract of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India dated 16.12.2024 which shows that the company is in active compliance and the company status is also active which depicts that the petitioner company is not in liquidation proceedings. Therefore, this fact has been clarified by the petitioner by filing the additional affidavit dated 09.05.2025, which is on record. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has not been able to dispute such status of the petitioner company. Nothing is placed on record by the contesting respondents to show that the petitioner company is in liquidation.
20. Another contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner company in proceedings before the competent Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined authority under the Land Grabbing Act had taken a stand that the petitioner company is in liquidation and therefore, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order may not be interfered. The contention so raised pertains to some different proceedings in law. The learned counsel for the respondents as placed on record the written statement filed by the petitioner company in two different land grabbing cases, one initiated by the contesting respondent herein and another by some other person wherein the petitioner company has taken a stand that the petitioner has gone into liquidation. The said factum has also been explained by the petitioner stating that in the said land grabbing proceedings, the petitioner has filed a Purshis bringing on record the correct facts that the petitioner company has not gone into liquidation and such stand was inadvertently taken by the executives of the petitioner company.
21. Be that as it may. Perusing the documents on record, it is clear that the petitioner company is not in liquidation. Further, the order relied upon by the learned Secretary (Appeals) in the impugned order, does not pertain to the petitioner, but the same pertains to the demerged company AMW Motors Limited. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Secretary Appeals erred in holding that the order dated 28.07.2023, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahemdabad in CP (IB) No. 184 of 2018, pertains to the present petitioner and that a liquidator has been appointed in respect of the petitioner company. That since error is apparent on the face of record, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The learned Secretary (Appeals) is directed to decide the Revision Application No. 73 of 2024 a fresh on own merits and in accordance with law after giving due hearing to the parties and dealing with all the contentions by giving cogent reasons.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/65/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
The Special Civil Application, accordingly, is disposed of. No order as to cost.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ABHA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by KUMARI ABHA(HC02354) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:06:39 IST 2025